IV. Concerning the infallible teaching of the Roman Pontiff: (part 3 of 8)

IV. Concerning the infallible teaching of the Roman Pontiff: (part 3 of 8)

"There can be little doubt, as to what were the religious tenets of the first settlers of Providence. At the time of their removal here, they were members of Plymouth and Massachusetts churches. Those churches, as it respects government, were Independent or Congregational, in doctrine, moderately Calvinistic and with regard to ceremonies, Pedobaptists. The settlers of Providence, did not cease to be members of those churches, by their removal, nor did the fact of their being members, constitute them a church, after it. They could not form themselves into a church of the faith and order of the Plymouth and Massachusetts churches, until dismissed from them; and after such dismissal, some covenant or agreement among themselves was necessary in order to effect it. That they met for public worship is beyond a doubt; but such meetings, though frequent and regular, would not make them a church. Among the first thirteen, were two ordained ministers, Roger Williams and Thomas James. That they preached to the settlers is quite probable, but there is no evidence of any intent to form a church, previous to March 1689. When they did attempt it, they had ceased to be Pedobaptists, for Ezekiel Holyman, a layman, had baptized Roger Williams, by immersion, and Mr. Williams afterwards had baptized Mr. Holyman and several others of the company, in the same manner. By this act they disowned the churches of which they had been members, and for this, they were soon excommunicated, by those churches. After being thus baptized, they formed a church and called Mr. Williams to be their pastor. This was the first church gathered in Providence. It has continued to the present day, and is now known as The First Baptist Church. … Mr. Williams held the pastoral office about four years, and then resigned the same. Mr. Holyman was his colleague. … A letter of Richard Scott, appended to 'A New England Fire-Brand Quenched,' and published about 1678, states that Mr. Williams left the Baptists and turned Seeker, a few months after he was baptized. Mr. Scott was a member of the Baptist church for some time, but at the date of this letter, had united with the Friends. According to Mr. Williams' new views as a Seeker, there was no regularly constituted church on earth, nor any person authorized to administer any church ordinance, nor could there be, until new apostles should be sent by the Great Head of the church, for whose coming he was seeking. He was not alone in these opinions. Many in his day believed that the ministry and ordinances of the christian church were irretrievably lost, during the papal usurpation. It has been supposed, by some, that Mr. Williams held these opinions while in Massachusetts, and that this was the reason he denied the church of England to be a true church, and withdrew from his connexion with the Salem church. Aside from the statement of Mr. Scott, above quoted, that Mr. Williams turned Seeker, after he joined the Baptists and walked with them some months, the supposition is shown to be groundless, by his administering baptism in Providence, as before stated, and joining with the first Baptist church there. These acts he could not have performed, had he then been a Seeker."

W. R. Staples, Annals of the town of Providence, chapter 7.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1641-1647. Samuel Gorton and the Warwick Plantation.

"Among the supporters of Mrs. Hutchinson, after her arrival at Aquedneck, was a sincere and courageous, but incoherent and crotchetty man named Samuel Gorton. In the denunciatory language of that day he was called a 'proud and pestilent seducer,' or, fas the modern newspaper would say, a 'crank.' It is well to make due allowances for the prejudice so conspicuous in the accounts given by his enemies, who felt obliged to justify their harsh treatment of him. But we have also his own writings from which to form an opinion as to his character and views. … Himself a London clothier, and thanking God that he had not been brought up in 'the schools of human learning,' he set up as a preacher without ordination, and styled himself 'professor of the mysteries of Christ.' He seems to have cherished that doctrine of private inspiration which the Puritans especially abhorred. … Gorton's temperament was such as to keep him always in an atmosphere of strife. Other heresiarchs suffered persecution in Massachusetts, but Gorton was in hot water everywhere. His arrival in any community was the signal for an immediate disturbance of the peace. His troubles began in Plymouth, where the wife of the pastor preferred his teachings to those of her husband. In 1638 he fled to Aquedneck, where his first achievement was a schism among Mrs. Hutchinson's followers, which ended in some staying to found the town of Portsmouth while others went away to found Newport. Presently Portsmouth found him intolerable, flogged and banished him, and after his departure was able to make up its quarrel with Newport. He next made his way with a few followers to Pawtuxet, within the jurisdiction of Providence, and now it is the broad-minded and gentle Roger Williams who complains of his 'bewitching and madding poor Providence.' … Williams disapproved of Gorton, but was true to his principles of toleration and would not take part in any attempt to silence him. But in 1641 we find thirteen leading citizens of Providence, headed by William Arnold, sending a memorial to Boston, asking for assistance and counsel in regard to this disturber of the peace. How was Massachusetts to treat such an appeal? She could not presume to meddle with the affair unless she could have permanent jurisdiction over Pawtuxet; otherwise she was a mere intruder. … Whatever might be the abstract merits of Gorton's opinions, his conduct was politically dangerous; and accordingly the jurisdiction over Pawtuxet was formally conceded to Massachusetts. {2642} Thereupon that colony, assuming jurisdiction, summoned Gorton and his men to Boston, to prove their title to the lands they occupied. They of course regarded the summons as a flagrant usurpation of authority, and instead of obeying it they withdrew to Shawomet [Warwick], on the western shore of Narragansett bay, where they bought a tract of land from the principal sachem of the Narragansetts, Miantonomo."

J. Fiske, The Beginnings of New England, pages 163-168.

"Soon afterward, by the surrender to Massachusetts of a subordinate Indian chief, who claimed the territory … purchased by Gorton of Miantonomi [or Miantonomo], that Government made a demand of jurisdiction there also; and as Gorton refused their summons to appear at Boston, Massachusetts sent soldiers, and captured the inhabitants in their homes, took them to Boston, tried them, and sentenced the greater part of them to imprisonment for blasphemous language to the Massachusetts authorities. They were finally liberated, and banished; and as Warwick was included in the forbidden territory, they went to Rhode Island. Gorton and two of his friends soon afterward went to England." Subsequently, when, in 1647, the government of Providence Plantations was organized under the charter which Roger Williams had procured in England in 1644, "Warwick, whither Gorton and his followers had now returned, though not named in the charter, was admitted to its privileges."

C. Deane, New England (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 3, chapter 9).

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1651-1652. Coddington's usurpation. Second mission of Roger Williams to England. Restoration of the Charter. First enactment against Slavery.

In 1651, William Coddington, who had been chosen President some time before, but who had gone to England without legally entering the office, succeeded by some means in obtaining from the Council of State a commission which appointed him governor of Rhode Island and Connecticut for life, with a council of six to assist him in the government. This apparently annulled the charter of the colony. Again the colony appealed to Roger Williams to plead its cause in England and again he crossed the ocean, "obtaining a hard-wrung leave to embark at Boston. … In the same ship went John Clarke, as agent for the Island towns, to ask for the revocation of Coddington's commission. On the success of their application hung the fate of the Colony. Meanwhile the Island towns submitted silently to Coddington's usurpation, and the main-land towns continued to govern themselves by their old laws, and meet and deliberate as they had done before in their General Assembly. It was in the midst of these dangers and dissensions that on the 19th of May, in the session of 1652, it was 'enacted and ordered … that no black mankind or white being forced by covenant, bond or otherwise shall be held to service longer than ten years,' and that 'that man that will not let them go free, or shall sell them any else where to that end that they may be enslaved to others for a longer time, hee or they shall forfeit to the Colonie forty pounds.' This was the first legislation concerning slavery on this continent. If forty pounds should seem a small penalty, let us remember that the price of a slave was but twenty. If it should be objected that the act was imperfectly enforced, let us remember how honorable a thing it is to have been the first to solemn]y recognize a great principle. Soul liberty had borne her first fruits. … Welcome tidings came in September, and still more welcome in October. Williams and Clarke … had obtained, first, permission for the colony to act under the charter until the final decision of the controversy, and a few weeks later the revocation of Coddington's commission. The charter was fully restored."

G. W. Greene, Short History of Rhode Island, chapter 6.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1656. Refusal to join in the persecution of Quakers.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1656-1661.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1660-1663. The Charter from Charles II, and the boundary conflicts with Connecticut.

"At its first meeting after the King [Charles II.] came to enjoy his own again, the government of Rhode Island caused him to be proclaimed, and commissioned Clarke [agent of the colony in England] to prosecute its interests at court, which he accordingly proceeded to do. … He was intrusted with his suit about a year before Winthrop's arrival in England; but Winthrop [the younger, who went to England on behalf of Connecticut] had been there several months, attending to his business, before he heard anything of the designs of Clarke. His charter of Connecticut had passed through the preliminary forms, and was awaiting the great seal, when it was arrested in consequence of representations made by the agent from Rhode Island. … Winthrop, in his new charter, had used the words 'bounded on the east by the Narrogancett River, commonly called Narrogancett Bay, where the said river falleth into the sea.' To this identity between Narragansett River and Narragansett Bay Clarke objected, as will be presently explained. A third party was interested in the settlement of the eastern boundary of Connecticut. This was the Atherton Company, so called from Humphrey Atherton of Dorchester, one of the partners. They had bought of the natives a tract of land on the western side of Narragansett Bay; and when they heard that Connecticut was soliciting a charter, they naturally desired that their property should be placed under the government of that colony, rather than under the unstable government of Rhode Island. Winthrop, who was himself one of the associates, wrote from London that the arrangement he had made accorded with their wish. Rhode Island, however, maintained that the lands of the Atherton purchase belonged to her jurisdiction. … When Winthrop thought that he had secured for Connecticut a territory extending eastward to Narragansett Bay, Clarke had obtained for Rhode Island the promise of a charter which pushed its boundary westward to the Paucatuck River, so as to include in the latter colony a tract 25 miles wide, and extending in length from the southern border of Massachusetts to the sea. The interference of the charters with each other endangered both. The agents entered into a negotiation which issued, after several months, in a composition effected by the award of four arbiters. Two articles of it were material. One was that Paucatuck River should 'be the certain bounds between the two colonies, which said river should, for the future, be also called, alias, Narrogansett, or Narrogansett River.' The other allowed the Atherton Company to choose 'to which of those colonies they would belong.' The undesirable consequences of a dispute were thus averted; though to say that 'Paucatuck River' meant Narragansett Bay was much the same as to give to the Thames the name of the British Channel; and if the agreement between the agents should stand, Connecticut would be sadly curtailed of her domain." {2643} On the 8th of July, 1663, "Clarke's charter, which the King probably did not know that he had been contradicting, passed the seals. It created 'a body corporate and politic, in fact and name, by the name of the Governor and Company of the English Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in New England in America.' Similar to the charter of Connecticut in grants marked by a liberality hitherto unexampled, it added to them the extraordinary provision that 'no person within the said colony, at any time thereafter, should be anywise molested, punished, disquieted, or called in question, for any difference of opinion in matters of religion which did not actually disturb the civil peace of the said colony.' … Matters were now all ripe for a conflict of jurisdiction between Rhode Island and Connecticut. Using the privilege of choice secured by the compact between the agents, the Atherton Company elected to place their lands, including a settlement known by the name of Wickford, under the government of the latter colony. Rhode Island enacted that all persons presuming to settle there without her leave should be 'taken and imprisoned for such their contempt.' … This proved to be the beginning of a series of provocations and reprisals between the inharmonious neighbors."

J. G. Palfrey, Compendious History of New England, book 2, chapter 12 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: _S. S. Rider, Book Notes, volume 10, pages 109-110. _

S. G. Arnold, History of Rhode Island, chapter 8 (volume 1).

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1674-1678. King Philip's War.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675; 1675; 1676-1678.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1683. Death of Roger Williams. Estimates of his character.

Roger Williams, having given all to his colony, seems to have died without property, dependent upon his children. His son, Daniel, in a letter written in 1710, says: "He never gave me but about three acres of land, and but a little afore he deceased. It looked hard, that out of so much at his disposing, that I should have so little, and he so little. … If a covetous man had that opportunity as he had, most of this town would have been his tenants." "Of the immediate cause and exact time of Mr. Williams' death we are not informed. It is certain, however, that he died at some time between January 16, 1682-3, and May 10, 1683. … He was in the 84th year of his age."

J. D. Knowles, Memoir of Roger Williams, pages 111 and 354.

"We call those great who have devoted their lives to some noble cause, and have thereby influenced for the better the course of events. Measured by that standard, Roger Williams deserves a high niche in the temple of fame, alongside of the greatest reformers who mark epochs in the world's history. He was not the first to discover the principles of religious liberty, but he was the first to proclaim them in all their plenitude, and to found and build up a political community with those principles as the basis of its organization. The influence and effect of his 'lively experiment' of religious liberty and democratic government upon the political system of our country, and throughout the civilized world, are admirably stated by Professor Gervinus in his 'Introduction to the History of the Nineteenth Century.' He says: 'Roger Williams founded in 1636 a small new society in Rhode Island, upon the principles of entire liberty of conscience, and the uncontrolled power of the majority in secular affairs. The theories of freedom in Church and State, taught in the schools of philosophy in Europe, were here brought into practice in the government of a small community. It was prophesied that the democratic attempts to obtain universal suffrage, a general elective franchise, annual parliaments, entire religious freedom, and the Miltonian right of schism would be of short duration. But these institutions have not only maintained themselves here, but have spread over the whole union. They have superseded the aristocratic commencements of Carolina and of New York, the high-church party in Virginia, the theocracy in Massachusetts, and the monarchy throughout America; they have given laws to one quarter of the globe, and, dreaded for their moral influence, they stand in the background of every democratic struggle in Europe.'"

O. S. Straus, Roger Williams, page 233.

"Roger Williams, as all know, was the prophet of complete religious toleration in America. … That as no man he was 'conscientiously contentious' I should naturally be among the last to deny; most men who contribute materially towards bringing about great changes, religious or moral, are 'conscientiously contentious.' Were they not so they would not accomplish the work they are here to do."

C. F. Adams, Massachusetts: its Historians and its History, page 25.

"The world, having at last nearly caught up with him, seems ready to vote—though with a peculiarly respectable minority in opposition—that Roger Williams was after all a great man, one of the true heroes, seers, world–movers, of these latter ages. Perhaps one explanation of the pleasure which we take in now looking upon him, as he looms up among his contemporaries in New England, may be that the eye of the observer, rather fatigued by the monotony of so vast a throng of sages and saints, all quite immaculate, all equally prim and still in their Puritan starch and uniform, all equally automatic and freezing, finds a relief in the easy swing of this man's gait, the limberness of his personal movement, his escape from the pasteboard proprieties, his spontaneity, his impetuosity, his indiscretions, his frank acknowledgments that he really had a few things yet to learn. Somehow, too, though he sorely vexed the souls of the judicious in his time, and evoked from them words of dreadful reprehension, the best of them loved him; for indeed this headstrong, measureless man, with his flashes of Welsh fire, was in the grain of him a noble fellow; 'a man,' as Edward Winslow said, 'lovely in his carriage.' … From his early manhood even down to his late old age. Roger Williams stands in New England a mighty and benignant form, always pleading for some magnanimous idea, some tender charity, the rectification of some wrong, the exercise of some sort of forbearance toward men's bodies or souls. It was one of his vexatious peculiarities, that he could do nothing by halves—even in logic. Having established his major and his minor premises, he utterly lacked the accommodating judgment which would have enabled him to stop there and go no further whenever it seemed that the concluding member of his syllogism was likely to annoy the brethren. To this frailty in his organization is due the fact that he often seemed to his contemporaries an impracticable person, presumptuous, turbulent, even seditious."

M. C. Tyler, History of American Literature, chapter 9, section 4.

{2644}

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1686. The consolidation of New England under Governor-general Andros.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1686.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1689-1701. The charter government reinstated and confirmed.

See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1689-1701.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1690. King William's War. The first Colonial Congress.

See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690; and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1747. The founding of the Redwood Library.

See LIBRARIES, MODERN: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1754. The Colonial Congress at Albany, and Franklin's Plan of Union.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1760-1766. The question of taxation by Parliament. The Sugar Act. The Stamp Act and its repeal. The Declaratory Act. The Stamp Act Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1764. The founding of Brown University.

Brown University was founded in 1764, especially in the interest of the Baptist Church, and with aid from that denomination in other parts of the country. It was placed first at Warren, but soon removed to Providence, where it was named in honor of its chief benefactor, John Brown.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1766-1768. The Townshend Duties. The Circular Letter of Massachusetts.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767; and 1767-1768.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1768-1770. The quartering of troops in Boston. The "Massacre" and the removal of the troops.

See BOSTON: A. D. 1768; and 1770.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1770-1773. Repeal of the Townshend duties, except on Tea. Committees of Correspondence instituted. The Tea Ships and the Boston Tea-party.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770, and 1772-1773; and BOSTON: A. D. 1773.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1772. The destruction of the Gaspe. The first overt act of the Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1772.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1774. The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act, and the Quebec Act.- The First Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1774. The further introduction of Slaves prohibited.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1774.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1775.- The beginning of the War of the American Revolution. Lexington. Concord. The country in arms and Boston beleaguered.- Ticonderoga. Bunker Hill. The Second Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1775. Early naval enterprises in the war.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775-1776 BEGINNING OF THE AMERICAN NAVY.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1776. Allegiance to the king renounced. State independence declared. The British occupation.

"The last Colonial Assembly of Rhode Island met on the 1st of May. On the 4th, two months before the Congressional Declaration of Independence, it solemnly renounced its allegiance to the British crown, no longer closing its session with 'God save the King,' but taking in its stead as expressive of their new relations, 'God save the United Colonies.' … The Declaration of Independence by Congress was received with general satisfaction, and proclaimed with a national salute and military display. At Providence the King's arms were burned, and the Legislature assumed its legal title, 'The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.' … From the 4th of May, 1776, the Declaration of Independence of Rhode Island, to the battle of Tiverton Heights, on the 29th of August, 1778, she lived with the enemy at her door, constantly subject to invasion by land and by water, and seldom giving her watch-worn inhabitants the luxury of a quiet pillow. … In November … a British fleet took possession of her waters, a British army of her principal island. The seat of government was removed to Providence."

G. W. Greene, Short History of Rhode Island, chapters 24-25.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1776-1783. The War of Independence to the end. Peace with Great Britain.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776, to 1783.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1778. Failure of attempts to drive the British from Newport.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1783-1790. After the War of Independence. Paper-money. Opposition to the Federal Constitution. Tardy entrance into the Union. Rhode Island emerged from the war of independence bankrupt.

"The first question was how to replenish the exhausted treasury. The first answer was that money should be created by the fiat of Rhode Island authorities. Intercourse with others was not much thought of. Fiat money would be good at home. So the paper was issued by order of the Legislature which had been chosen for that purpose. A 'respectable minority' opposed the insane measure, but that did not serve to moderate the insanity. When the credit of the paper began to fall, and traders would not receive it, laws were passed to enforce its reception at par. Fines and punishments were enacted for failure to receive the worthless promises. Starvation, stared many in the face. Now it was the agricultural class against the commercial class; and the former party had a large majority in the state and General Assembly. When dealers arranged to secure trade outside the state, that they might not be compelled to handle the local paper currency, it was prohibited by act. When three judges decided that the law compelling men to receive this 'money' was unconstitutional, they were brought before that august General Assembly, and tried and censured for presuming to say that constitutional authority was higher than legislative authority. At last, however, that lesson was learned, and the law was repealed. Before this excitement had subsided the movement for a new national Constitution began. But what did Rhode Island want of a closer bond of union with other states? … She feared the 'bondage' of a centralized government. She had fought for the respective liberties of the other colonies, as an assistant in the struggle. She had fought for her own special, individual liberty as a matter of her own interest. {2645} Further her needs were comparatively small as to governmental machinery, and taxation must be small in proportion; and she did not wish to be taxed to support a general government. … So when the call was made for each state to hold a convention to elect delegates to a Constitutional Convention, Rhode Island paid not the slightest attention to it. All the other states sent delegates, but Rhode Island sent none; and the work of that convention, grand and glorious as it was, was not shared by her. … The same party that favored inflation, or paper money, opposed the Constitution; and that party was in the majority and in power. The General Assembly had been elected with this very thing in view. Meanwhile the loyal party, which was found mostly in the cities and commercial centres, did all in its power to induce the General Assembly to call a convention; but that body persistently refused. Once it suggested a vote of the people in their own precincts; but that method was a failure. As state after state came into the Union, the Union party, by bonfire, parade, and loud demonstration, celebrated the event."

_G. L. Harney, How Rhode Island received the Constitution (New England Magazine, May, 1890)._

"The country party was in power, and we have seen that elsewhere as well as in Rhode Island, it was the rural population that hated change. The action of the other states had been closely watched and their objections noted. One thing strikes a Rhode Islander very peculiarly in regard to the adoption of the federal constitution. The people were not to vote directly upon it, but only second-hand through delegates to a state convention. No amendment to our state constitution, even at this day, can be adopted without a majority of three-fifths of all the votes cast, the voting being directly on the proposition, and a hundred years ago no state was more democratic in its notions than Rhode Island. Although the Philadelphia Convention had provided that the federal constitution should be ratified in the different states by conventions of delegates elected by the people for that purpose, upon the call of the General Assembly, yet this did not accord with the Rhode Island idea, so in February, 1788, the General Assembly voted to submit the question whether the constitution of the United States should be adopted, to the voice of the people to be expressed at the polls on the fourth Monday in March. The federalists fearing they would be out-voted, largely abstained from voting, so the vote stood two hundred and thirty-seven for the constitution, and two thousand seven hundred and eight against it, there being about four thousand voters in the state at that time. Governor Collins, in a letter to the president of Congress written a few days after the vote was taken, gives the feeling then existing in Rhode Island, in this wise:—'Although this state has been singular from her sister states in the mode of collecting the sentiments of the people upon the constitution, it was not done with the least design to give any offence to the respectable body who composed the convention, or a disregard to the recommendation of Congress, but upon pure republican principles, founded upon that basis of all governments originally derived from the body of the people at large. And although, sir, the majority has been so great against adopting the Constitution, yet the people, in general, conceive that it may contain some necessary articles which could well be added and adapted to the present confederation. They are sensible that the present powers invested with Congress are incompetent for the great national government of the Union, and would heartily acquiesce in granting sufficient authority to that body to make, exercise and enforce laws throughout the states, which would tend to regulate commerce and impose duties and excise, whereby Congress might establish funds for discharging the public debt.' A majority of the voters of the country was undoubtedly against the constitution, but convention after convention was carried by the superior address and management of its friends. Rhode Island lacked great men, who favored the constitution, to lead her. … The requisite number of states having ratified the constitution, a government was formed under it April 30, 1789. Our General Assembly, at its September session in that year, sent a long letter to Congress explanatory of the situation in Rhode Island, and its importance warrants my quoting a part of it. 'The people of this state from its first settlement,' ran the letter, 'have been accustomed and strongly attached to a democratical form of government. They have viewed in the new constitution an approach, though perhaps but small, toward that form of government from which we have lately dissolved our connection at so much hazard and expense of life and treasure,—they have seen with pleasure the administration thereof from the most important trusts downward, committed to men who have highly merited and in whom the people of the United States place unbounded confidence. Yet, even on this circumstance, in itself so fortunate, they have apprehended danger by way of precedent. Can it be thought strange, then, that with these impressions, they should wait to see the proposed system organized and in operation, to see what further checks and securities would be agreed to and established by way of amendments, before they would adopt it as a constitution of government for themselves and their posterity? … Rhode Island never supposed she could stand alone. In the words of her General Assembly in the letter just referred to:—'They know themselves to be a handful, comparatively viewed.' This letter, as well as a former one I have quoted from, showed that she, like New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, and North Carolina, hoped to see the constitution amended. Like the latter state she believed in getting the amendments before ratification, and so strong was the pressure for amendments that at the very first session of Congress a series of amendments was introduced and passed for ratification by the states, and Rhode Island, though the last to adopt the constitution, was the ninth state to ratify the first ten amendments to that instrument now in force; ratifying both constitution and amendments at practically the same time. One can hardly wonder at the pressure for amendments to the original constitution when the amendments have to be resorted to for provisions that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free use thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances; that excessive bail should not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted; for right of trial by jury in civil cases; and for other highly important provisions."

_H. Rogers, Rhode Island's Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Rhode Island Historical Society, 1890)._

{2646}

The convention which finally accepted for Rhode Island and ratified the federal constitution met at South Kingston, in March, 1790, then adjourned to meet at Newport in May, and there completed its work.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787, and 1787-1789.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1814. The Hartford Convention.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER) THE HARTFORD CONVENTION.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1841-1843. The Dorr Rebellion. The old Charter replaced by a State Constitution.

The old colonial charter of Rhode Island remained unchanged until 1843. Its property qualification of the right of suffrage, and the inequality of representation in the legislature which became more flagrant as the state and its cities increased in population, became causes of great popular discontent. The legislature turned a deaf ear to all demands for a democratic basis of government, and in 1841 a serious attempt was made by a resolute party to initiate and carry through a revision of the constitution independently of legislative action. A convention was held in October of that year which framed a constitution and submitted it to the vote of the people. It was adopted by a majority of the votes cast, and, in accordance with its provisions, an election was held the following April. Thomas Wilson Dorr was chosen Governor, and on the 3d of May, 1842, the new government was formally inaugurated by its supporters at Providence, where they were in the majority. "If Mr. Dorr and his officers, supported by the armed men then at their command, had taken possession of the State House, Arsenal, and other state property, and acted as if they had confidence in themselves and their cause, the result might have been different. This was the course desired and advocated by Mr. Dorr, but he was overruled by more timid men, who dared go just far enough to commit themselves, disturb the peace of the state, and provoke the Law and Order government, but not far enough to give themselves a chance of success. While the People's government was being organized in Providence, the regularly elected General Assembly met on the same day at Newport, inaugurated the officers as usual, and passed resolutions declaring that an insurrection existed in the state and calling on the President for aid, which was … declined with good advice as to amnesty and concession, which was not heeded. On the following day a member of the People's legislature was arrested under the Algerine law, and this arrest was followed by others, which in turn produced a plentiful crop of resignations from that body. … At the request of his legislature, Mr. Dorr now went to Washington and unsuccessfully tried to secure the aid and countenance of President Tyler. … During Mr. Dorr's absence, both parties were pushing on military preparations. … The excitement at this time was naturally great, though many were still inclined to ridicule the popular fears, and the wildest rumors filled the air." On the 18th, the Dorr party made an attempt to gain possession of the state arsenal, but it failed rather ignominiously, and Dorr himself fled to Connecticut. One more abortive effort was made, by others less sagacious than himself, to rally the supporters of the Constitution, in an armed camp, formed at Chepachet; but the party in power confronted it with a much stronger force, and it dispersed without firing a gun. This was the end of the "rebellion." "In June, 1842, while the excitement was still at its height, the General Assembly had called still another convention, which met in September and … framed the present constitution, making an extension of the suffrage nearly equivalent to that demanded by the suffrage party previous to 1841. In November this constitution was adopted, and in May, 1843, went into effect with a set of officers chosen from the leaders of the Landholders' party, the same men who had always ruled the state. … Early in August, Governor Dorr, who had remained beyond the reach of the authorities, against his own will and in deference to the wishes of his friends who still hoped, issued an address explaining and justifying his course and announcing that he should soon return to Rhode Island. Accordingly, on October 31, he returned to Providence, without concealment, and registered himself at the principal hotel. Soon afterwards, he was arrested and committed to jail, without bail, to await trial for treason. … The spirit in which this trial was conducted does no credit to the fairness or magnanimity of the court or of the Law and Order party. Under an unusual provision of the act, although all Dorr's acts had been done in Providence County, he was tried in Newport, the most unfriendly county in the state. … Every point was ruled against Mr. Dorr, and the charge to the jury, while sound in law, plainly showed the opinion and wishes of the court. It was promptly followed by a verdict of guilty, and on this verdict Mr. Dorr, on June 25, just two years from his joining the camp at Chepachet, was sentenced to imprisonment for life. … Declining an offer of liberation if he would take the oath to support the new constitution, Mr. Dorr went to prison and remained in close confinement until June, 1845, when an act of amnesty was passed, and he was released. A great concourse greeted him with cheers at the prison gates, and escorted him with music and banners to his father's house, which he had not entered since he began his contest for the establishment of the People's constitution. The newspapers all over the country, which favored his cause, congratulated him and spoke of the event as an act of tardy justice to a martyr in the cause of freedom and popular rights. … But Mr. Dorr's active life was over. He had left the prison broken in health and visibly declining to his end. The close confinement, dampness, and bad air had shattered his constitution, and fixed upon him a disease from which he never recovered. He lived nine years longer but in feeble health and much suffering."

_C. H. Payne, The Great Dorr War (New England Magazine, June, 1890)._

ALSO IN: _D. King, Life and Times of Thomas Wilson Dorr._

{2647}

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1888. Constitutional Amendment. The qualification of the Suffrage.

"The adoption of the Amendment to the Constitution of Rhode Island, at the recent election, relating to the elective franchise, brings to a close a political struggle which began in earnest in 1819. Hence it has been in progress about 80 years. It makes, or will ultimately make, great political changes here. … It may not be inopportune, upon the consummation of so great a political change, to note briefly some of the steps by which the change came to pass. … The qualifications of electors was not defined by the charter. That power was given to the General Assembly. A property qualification was first introduced into the laws in 1665, and has ever since been and now is in part retained. It was not at first specified to be land, but men of competent estates, without regard to the species of property, 'may be admitted to be freemen.' Even so accurate a scholar as the late Judge Potter, has erred in his statement of the case. He says that by the act of March, 1663-4, all persons were required to be of 'competent estate.' This is not correct. The proposition was made two years subsequent to the establishment of the charter, and was made by the King of England, and sent by him by commissioners to Rhode Island and was then adopted and enacted by the General Assembly. … This qualification was made to depend only on land, by the act of the General Assembly of February 1723-4, and was a purely Rhode Island measure (Digest. of Rhode Island, 1730, p. 110). From that time until the present, covering a period of nearly 165 years, this qualification has in some measure remained. The value was then (in 1723) fixed at £100, and practically, it was never changed. It was raised or lowered from time to time to meet the fluctuation of paper money. Sometimes it was in 'old tenor' and sometimes in 'lawful money,' both of which were in paper, and reckoned usually in pounds, shillings and pence. In 1760, the amount was £40 lawful money. In 1763 'lawful money' was defined to be gold or silver. After the decimal system came into use, the mode of reckoning was changed into dollars. Thus in £40 are 800 shillings, which at six shillings to the dollar, which was then New England currency, is equal to $133.33; by the law of 1798 the sum was made $134, and so it has always since remained, and so under the recent amendment it remains as a qualification of an elector, who can vote on a question of expenditure, or the levying of a tax. … There was practically no change in the qualifications required of a man to become an elector from the earliest times down to 1842. In 1819 a serious attempt was made to obtain a constitution. A convention was called and a constitution was framed and submitted to the people, that is, to the Freemen, for adoption; but the General Assembly enacted that a majority of three-fifths should be required for its adoption. This was the origin of the three-fifth restriction in the present constitution. It did not enlarge the suffrage; a proposition to that end received only 3 votes against 61, nor was it of any general benefit, and it was as well that it failed. The political disabilities of men were confined to two classes, to wit: The second son, and other younger sons of freemen, and those other native American citizens of other states who had moved into Rhode Island, and therein acquired a residence. To these two classes, although possessed of abundant personal property, and upon which the state levied and collected taxes, and from whom the state exacted military service, the right to vote was denied, because among their possessions there was no land. It was taxation without representation, the very principle upon which the Revolution had been fought. In 1828 more than one-half the taxes paid in Providence were paid by men who could not vote upon any question. In 1830, in North Providence, there were 200 freemen and 579 native men, over twenty-one years, who were disfranchised. … There were in 1832 five men in Pawtucket who had fought the battles for Rhode Island through the Revolution, but who, possessing no land, had never been able to vote upon any question. … In another respect a great wrong was done. It was in the representation of the towns in the General Assembly. Jamestown had a representative for every eighteen freemen. Providence,one to every 275. Smithfield, one in every 206. Fifty dollars in taxes, in Burrington, had the same power in the representation that $750 had in Providence. The minority of legal voters actually controlled the majority. … Such then was the political condition of men in Rhode Island in 1830. There were about 8,000 Freemen and about 13,000 unenfranchised Americans with comparatively no naturalized foreigners among them. The agitation of the question did not cease. In 1829 it was so violent that the General Assembly referred the question to a committee, of which Benjamin Hazard was the head, and which committee made a report, always since known as Hazard's Report, which it was supposed would quiet forever the agitation. But it did not; for five years later a convention was called and a portion of a constitution framed. The question of foreigners was first seriously raised by Mr. Hazard in this report. By this term Mr. Hazard intended not only citizens of countries outside of the United States, but he intended American citizens of other American States. He would deny political rights to a man born in Massachusetts, who came to dwell in Rhode Island, in the same way that he would deny them to a Spaniard. A Massachusetts man must live here one year, the Spaniard three, but both must own land. These ideas were formulated in the constitution of 1834 as far as it went. … Fortunately it fell through and by the most disgraceful of actions; and its history when written will form one of the darkest chapters in Rhode Island history. This discrimination against foreign born citizens, that is, men born in countries outside of the United States, became more pointed in the proposed Landholders' Constitution of November 1841. A native of the United States could vote on a land qualification, or if he paid taxes upon other species of property. A foreigner must own land and he could not vote otherwise. This Constitution was defeated. Then came the People's Constitution, (otherwise known as the Dorr Constitution). It made no restrictions upon foreigners; it admitted all citizens of the United States upon an equal footing; negroes were excluded in both documents. This Constitution never went into effect. Then came the present Constitution, adopted in September, 1842, by which all the disabilities complained of were swept away with the exception of the discrimination in the case of foreigners. By it negroes were admitted, but foreigners were required to hold lands, as all the various propositions had provided with the single exception of the People's Constitution. Now comes the amendment recently adopted, and parallel with it I have reproduced the section relating to the same matter from the People's Constitution:

{2648}

Qualification of Electors under Amendment (Bourn) to Constitution, adopted April, 1888.

Section 1. Every male citizen of the United States of the age of 21 years, who has had his residence and home in this State for two years, and in the town or city in which he may offer to vote six months next preceding the time of his voting, and whose name shall be registered in the town or city where he resides on or before the last day of December, in the year next preceding to the time of his voting, shall have a right to vote in the election of all civil officers and on all questions in all legally organized town or ward meetings: Provided, that no person shall at any time be allowed to vote in that election of the City Council of any city, or upon any proposition to impose a tax, or for the expenditure of money in any town or city, unless he shall within the year next preceding have paid a tax assessed upon his property therein, valued at least at one hundred and thirty-four dollars.

Qualification of Electors under the People's (Dorr) Constitution, 1842.

Section 1. Every white male citizen of the United States of the age of twenty-one years, who has resided in this State for one year, and in any town, city or district of the same for six months next preceding the election at which he offers to vote, shall be an elector of all officers, who are elected, or may hereafter be made eligible by the people. **

Section 4. No elector who is not possessed of, and assessed for ratable property in his own right to the amount of one hundred and fifty dollars, or, who shall have neglected, or refused to pay any tax assessed upon him in any town or city or district, for one year preceding the * * meeting at which he shall offer to vote, shall be entitled to vote on any question of taxation, or the expenditure of any public moneys. * *

Section 7. There shall be a strict registration of all qualified voters * * * and no person shall be permitted to vote whose name has not been entered upon the list of voters before the polls are opened.

It thus appears that the people of Rhode Island have at last adopted an amendment to the Constitution, more liberal in its qualifications of electors, than the terms asked by Mr. Dorr, in 1842. … All that was asked by Mr. Dorr, and even by those of his party, more radical than himself, has been granted, and even more. And yet they were denounced with every species of vile epithet as Free Suffrage Men."

_S. S. Rider, The End of a great Political Struggle in Rhode Island (Book Notes, volume 5, paged 53-57)._

----------RHODE ISLAND: End--------

----------RHODES: Start--------

RHODES.

The island of Rhodes, with its picturesque capital city identical in name, lying in the Ægean Sea, near the southwestern corner of Asia Minor, has a place alike notable in the history of ancient and mediæval times; hardly less of a place, too, in prehistoric legends and myths. It has been famed in every age for a climate almost without defect. Among the ancients its Doric people [see ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES] were distinguished for their enterprise in commerce, their rare probity, their courage, their refinement, their wealth, their liberality to literature and the arts. In the middle ages all this had disappeared, but the island and the city had become the seat of the power of the Knights of St. John—the last outpost of European civilization in the east, held stoutly against the Turks until 1522. The unsuccessful siege of Rhodes, B. C. 305 or 304, by Demetrius, the son of Antigonus, was one of the great events of ancient military history. It "showed not only the power but the virtues of this merchant aristocracy. They rebuilt their shattered city with great magnificence. They used the metal of Demetrius's abandoned engines for the famous Colossus [see below], a bronze figure of the sun about 100 feet high, which, however, was thrown down and broken by the earthquake of B. C. 227, and lay for centuries near the quays, the wonder of all visitors. … It is said that the Saracens sold the remnants of this statue for old metal when they captured Rhodes. … It was doubtless during the same period that Rhodes perfected that system of marine mercantile law which was accepted not only by all Hellenistic states, but acknowledged by the Romans down to the days of the empire. … We do not know what the detail of their mercantile system was, except that it was worked by means of an active police squadron, which put down piracy, or confined it to shipping outside their confederacy, and also that their persistent neutrality was only abandoned when their commercial interests were directly attacked. In every war they appear as mediators and peace-makers. There is an allusion in the 'Mercator' of Plautus to young men being sent to learn business there, as they are now sent to Hamburg or Genoa. The wealth and culture of the people, together with the stately plan of their city, gave much incitement and scope to artists in bronze and marble, as well as to painters, and the names of a large number of Rhodian artists have survived on the pedestals of statues long since destroyed. But two famous works—whether originals or copies seems uncertain—still attest the genius of the school, the 'Laocoon,' now in the Vatican, and the 'Toro Farnese.'"

J. P. Mahaffy, Story of Alexander's Empire, chapter 20, with foot-note.

RHODES: B. C. 412. Revolt from Athens.

See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.

RHODES: B. C. 378-357. In the new Athenian Confederacy. Revolt and secession. The Social War.

See ATHENS: B. C. 378-357.

RHODES: B. C. 305-304. Siege by Demetrius Poliorcetes.

One of the memorable sieges of antiquity was that in which the brave, free citizens of Rhodes held their splendid town (B. C. 305) for one whole year against the utmost efforts of Demetrius, called Poliorcetes, or "the Besieger," son of Antigonus, the would-be successor of Alexander (see MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301). Demetrius was a remarkable engineer, for his age, and constructed machinery for the siege which was the wonder of the Grecian world. His masterpiece was the Helepolis, or "city-taker," —a wooden tower, 150 feet high, sheathed with iron, travelling on wheels and moved by the united strength of 3,400 men. He also assailed the walls of Rhodes with battering rams, 150 feet long, each driven by 1,000 men. But all his ingenious appliances failed and he was forced in the end to recognize the independence of the valiant Rhodians.

C. Torr, Rhodes in Ancient Times, pages 13-14, 44.

ALSO IN: C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 59.

{2649}

RHODES: B. C. 191. Alliance with Rome. War with Antiochus the Great. Acquisition of territory in Caria and Lycia.

See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

RHODES: B. C. 88. Besieged by Mithridates.

At the beginning of his first war with the Romans, B. C. 88, Mithridates made a desperate attempt to reduce the city of Rhodes, which was the faithful ally of Rome. But the Rhodians repelled all his assaults, by sea and by land, and he was forced to abandon the siege.

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 2, chapter 20.

RHODES: A. D. 1310. Conquest and occupation by the Knights Hospitallers of St. John.

See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1310.

RHODES: A. D. 1480. Repulse of the Turks.

See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1451-1481.

RHODES: A. D. 1522. Siege and conquest by the Turks. Surrender and withdrawal of the Knights of St. John.

See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1522.

----------RHODES: End--------

RHODES, The Colossus of.

"In the elementary works for the instruction of young people, we find frequent mention of the Colossus of Rhodes. The statue is always represented with gigantic limbs, each leg resting on the enormous rocks which face the entrance to the principal port of the Island of Rhodes; and ships in full sail passed easily, it is said, between its legs; for, according to Pliny the ancient, its height was 70 cubits. This Colossus was reckoned among the seven wonders of the world, the six others being, as is well known, the hanging gardens of Babylon, devised by Nitocris, wife of Nebuchadnezzar; the pyramids of Egypt; the statue of Jupiter Olympus; the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus; the temple of Diana at Ephesus; and the Pharos of Alexandria, completely destroyed by an earthquake in 1303. Nowhere has any authority been found for the assertion that the Colossus of Rhodes spanned the entrance to the harbour of the island and admitted the passage of vessels in full sail between its wide-stretched limbs. … The following is the real truth concerning the Colossus." After the abandonment of the siege of Rhodes, in 305, by Demetrius Poliorcetes, "the Rhodians, inspired by a sentiment of piety, and excited by fervent gratitude for so signal a proof of the divine favour, commanded Charès to erect a statue to the honour of their deity [the sun-god Helios]. An inscription explained that the expenses of its construction were defrayed out of the sale of the materials of war left by Demetrius on his retreat from the island of Rhodes. This statue was erected on an open space of ground near the great harbour, and near the spot where the pacha's seraglio now stands; and its fragments, for many years after its destruction, were seen and admired by travellers."

O. Delepierre, Historical Difficulties, chapter 1.

RHODES, Knights of.

During their occupation of the island, the Knights Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem were commonly called Knights of Rhodes, as they were afterwards called Knights of Malta.

See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN.

RI, The.

"The Ri or king, who was at the head of the tribe [the 'tuath,' or tribe, in ancient Ireland], held that position not merely by election, but as the representative in the senior line of the common ancestor, and had a hereditary claim to their obedience. As the supreme authority and judge of the tribe he was the Ri or king. This was his primary function. … As the leader in war he was the 'Toisech' or Captain."

W. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland, volume 3, page 140.

See, also, TUATH, THE.

RIALTO: Made the seat of Venetian government.

See VENICE: A. D. 697-810.

RIBBON SOCIETIES. RIBBONISM.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1820-1826.

RIBCHESTER, Origin of.

See COCCIUM.

RICH MOUNTAIN, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (JUNE-JULY: WEST VIRGINIA).

RICHARD (of Cornwall), King of Germany, A. D. 1256-1271.

Richard I. (called Cœur de Leon), King of England, 1189-1199.

Richard II. King of England, 1377-1399.

Richard III. King of England, 1483-1485.

RICHBOROUGH, England, Roman origin of.

See RUTUPIÆ.

RICHELIEU, The Ministry of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1610-1619, to 1642-1643.

----------RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: Start--------

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: Powhatan's residence.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: POWHATAN CONFEDERACY.

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1781. Lafayette's defense of the city.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781 (JANUARY-MAY).

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861. Made the capital of the Southern Confederacy.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (JULY).

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862. McClellan's Peninsular Campaign against the Confederate capital.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MARCH-MAY: VIRGINIA); (MAY: VIRGINIA); (JUNE: VIRGINIA); (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA); and (JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA).

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1864 (March). Kilpatrick's and Dahlgren's Raid.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: VIRGINIA).

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1864 (May). Sheridan's Raid to the city lines.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA) SHERIDAN'S RAID.

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL). Abandonment by the Confederate army and government. Destructive conflagration. President Lincoln in the city.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL: VIRGINIA).

----------RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: End--------

RICIMER, Count, and his Roman imperial puppets.

See ROME: A. D. 455-476.

RICOS HOMBRES, of Aragon.

See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH

RIDGEWAY, Battle of.

See CANADA: A.D. 1866-1871.

RIDINGS OF YORKSHIRE.

The name Ridings is a corruption of the word Trithings, or 'Thirds,' which was applied to the large divisions of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire (England) in the time of the Angles.

T. P. Taswell-Langmead, English Constitutional History, chapter 1, note.

RIEL'S REBELLION.

See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.

RIENZI'S REVOLUTION.

See ROME: A. D. 1347-1354.

{2650}

RIGA: A. D. 1621. Siege and capture by Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1611-1629.

RIGA: A. D. 1700. Unsuccessful siege by the King of Poland.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1697-1700.

"RIGHT," "LEFT," AND "CENTER," The.

In France, and several other continental European countries, political parties in the legislative bodies are named according to the positions of the seats which they occupy in their respective chambers. The extreme conservatives gather at the right of the chair of the presiding officer, and are known, accordingly, as "The Right." The extreme radicals similarly collected on the opposite side of the chamber, are called "The Left." Usually, there is a moderate wing of each of these parties which partially detaches itself and is designated, in one case, "The Right Center," and in the other, "The Left Center"; while, midway between all these divisions, there is a party of independents who take the name of "The Center."

RIGHT OF SEARCH, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809; and 1812.

RIGHTS, Declaration and Bill of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY), and (OCTOBER).

RIGSDAG, The.

The legislative assembly of Denmark and Sweden.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874; and CONSTITUTION OF SWEDEN.

RIGSRET.

See CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY.

RIGVEDA, The.

See INDIA: THE IMMIGRATION AND CONQUESTS OF THE ARYAS.

RIMINI, Origin of the city.

See ROME: B. C. 295-191.

RIMINI, The Malatesta family.

See MALATESTA FAMILY.

RIMINI, A. D. 1275. Sovereignty of the Pope confirmed by Rodolph of Hapsburg.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.

RIMMON.

"The name of Rimmon, which means pomegranate,' occurs frequently in the topography of Palestine, and was probably derived from the culture of this beautiful tree."

J. Kenrick, Phœnicia, chapter 2.

RIMNIK, Battle of (1789).

See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

RINGGOLD, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

RINGS OF THE AVARS.

See AVARS, RINGS OF THE.

RIOTS, Draft.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1863.

RIPON, Lord, The Indian administration of.

See INDIA: A. D. 1880-1893.

RIPON, Treaty of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.

RIPUARIAN FRANKS, The.

See FRANKS.

RIPUARIANS, Law of the.

"On the death of Clovis, his son, Theodoric, was king of the eastern Franks; that is to say, of the Ripuarian Franks; he resided at Metz. To him is generally attributed the compilation of their law. … According to this tradition, then, the law of the Ripuarians should be placed between the years 511 and 534. It could not have, like the Salic, the pretension of ascending to the right-hand bank of the Rhine, and to ancient Germany. … I am inclined to believe that it was only under Dagobert I., between the years 628 and 638, that it took the definite form under which it has reached us."

F. Guizot, History of Civilization, volume 2 (France, volume 1), lecture 10.

RIVOLI, Battle of (1797).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

ROAD OF THE SWANS, The.

See NORMANS: NAME AND ORIGIN.

ROANOKE: A. D. 1585-1590. The first attempts at English settlement in America. The lost colony.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1584-1586; and 1587-1590.

ROANOKE: A. D. 1862. Capture by Burnside's Expedition.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-APRIL: NORTH CAROLINA).

ROBE, La Noblesse de la.

See PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.

ROBERT, Latin Emperor at Constantinople (Romania), A. D. 1221-1228.

Robert, King of Naples, 1309-1343.

Robert I., King of France, 922-923.

Robert I. (Bruce), King of Scotland, 1306-1329.

Robert II., King of France, 996-1031.

Robert II. (first of the Stuarts), King of Scotland, 1370-1390.

Robert III., King of Scotland, 1390-1406.

ROBERTSON, James, and the early settlement of Tennessee.

See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1769-1772, to 1785-1796.

ROBESPIERRE, and the French Revolution.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (AUGUST-OCTOBER), to 1794 (JULY).

ROBINSON, John, and his Congregation.

See INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1604-1617; and MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.

ROBOGDII, The.

See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

ROCCA SECCA, Battle of (1411).

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1386-1414.

ROCHAMBEAU, Count de, and the War of the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (JULY); 1781 (JANUARY-MAY); 1781 (MAY-OCTOBER).

ROCHE-ABEILLE, La, Battle of (1569).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

----------ROCHELLE: Start--------

ROCHELLE: Early Importance. Expulsion of the English. Grant of Municipal independence.

"Rochelle had always been one of the first commercial places of France; it was well known to the English under the name of the White Town, as they called it, from its appearance when the sun shone and was reflected from its rocky coasts. It was also much frequented by the Netherlanders. … The town had … enjoyed extraordinary municipal franchises ever since the period of the English wars.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360, and 1360-1380.

It had by its own unaided power revolted from the English dominion [1372], for which Charles V., in his customary manner, conferred upon the townsfolk valuable privileges,—among others, that of independent jurisdiction in the town and its liberties. The design of Henry II. to erect a citadel within their walls they had been enabled fortunately to prevent, through the favour of the Chatillons and the Moutmorencies. Rochelle exhibited Protestant sympathies at an early period."

L. von Ranke, Civil Wars and Monarchy if France, in the 16th and 17th Centuries, chapter 14.

{2651}

ALSO IN: H. M. Baird, History of the Rise of the Huguenots of France, volume 2, page 270-273.

ROCHELLE: A. D. 1568. Becomes the headquarters of the Huguenots. Arrival of the Queen of Navarre.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

ROCHELLE: A. D. 1573. Siege and successful defense.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1572-1573.

ROCHELLE: A. D. 1620-1622. Huguenot revolt in support of Navarre and Bearn. The unfavorable Peace of Montpelier.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1620-1622.

ROCHELLE: A. D. 1625-1626. Renewed revolt. Second treaty of Montpelier.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

ROCHELLE: A. D. 1627-1628. Revolt in alliance with England. Siege and surrender. Richelieu's dyke. The decay of the city.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1627-1628.

----------ROCHELLE: End--------

ROCHESTER, England: Origin.

One of two Roman towns in Britain called Durobrivæ is identified in site with the modern city of Rochester. It derived its Saxon name—originally "Hrofescester"—"according to Bede, from one of its early rulers or prefects named Hrof, who, for some circumstance or other, had probably gained greater notoriety than most persons of his class and rank."

T. Wright, Celt, Roman and Saxon, chapters 5 and 16.

ROCKINGHAM MINISTRIES, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1765-1768: and 1782-1783.

ROCROI: A. D. 1643. Siege and Battle.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643.

ROCROI: A. D. 1653. Siege by Condé in the Spanish service.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1653-1656.

ROCROI: A. D. 1659. Recovered by France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

RODNEY'S NAVAL VICTORY.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1782.

RODOALDUS, King of the Lombards, A. D. 654-659.

RODOLPH.

See RUDOLPH.

ROESKILDE, Treaty of (1658).

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.

ROGATION.

With reference to the legislation of the Romans, "he word Rogatio is frequently used to denote a Bill proposed to the people. … After a Rogatio was passed it became a Lex; but in practice Rogatio and Lex were used as convertible terms, just as Bill and Law are by ourselves."

W. Ramsay, Manual of Roman Antiquity, chapter 4.

ROGER I., Count of Sicily, A. D. 1072-1101.

ROGER II., Count of Sicily, 1106-1129; King of Naples and Sicily, 1129-1154.

ROGUE RIVER INDIANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MODOCS, &c.

ROHAN, Cardinal-Prince de, and the Diamond Necklace.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1784-1785.

ROHILLA WAR, The.

See INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785.

ROIS FAINÉANS.

See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

ROLAND, Madame, and the Girondists.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER), to 1793 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

ROLAND, The great Bell.

See GHENT: A. D. 1539-1540.

ROLICA, Battle of (1808).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (AUGUST-JANUARY).

ROLLO, Duke, The conquest of Normandy by.

See NORMANS: A. D. 876-911; and NORMANDY: A. D. 911-1000.

ROLLS OF THE PIPE. ROLLS OF THE CHANCERY.

See EXCHEQUER.

ROMA QUADRATA.

See PALATINE HILL.

ROMAGNA.

The old exarchate of Ravenna, "as having been the chief seat of the later Imperial power in Italy, got the name of Romania, Romandiola, or Romagna."

E. A. Freeman, Historical Geography of Europe, pages 234 and 238.

ROMAGNANO, Battle of (1524).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525.

ROMAN AUGURS.

See AUGURS.

ROMAN CALENDAR. ROMAN YEAR.

See CALENDAR, JULIAN.

ROMAN CAMPAGNA, OR CAMPANIA.

See CAMPAGNA.

ROMAN CATACOMBS, The.

See CATACOMBS.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.

See PAPACY, and CATHOLICS.

----------ROMAN CITIZENSHIP: Start--------

ROMAN CITIZENSHIP: Under the Republic.

See CIVES ROMANI; also, QUIRITES.

ROMAN CITIZENSHIP: Under the Empire.

"While Pompeius, Cæsar, Augustus and others extended the Latin rights to many provincial communities, they were careful to give the full Roman qualification [the 'privileges of Quiritary proprietorship, which gave not merely the empty title of the suffrage, but the precious immunity from tribute or land-tax'] to persons only. Of such persons, indeed, large numbers were admitted to citizenship by the emperors. The full rights of Rome were conferred on the Transalpine Gauls by Claudius, and the Latin rights on the Spaniards by Vespasian; but it was with much reserve that any portions of territory beyond Italy were enfranchised, and rendered Italic or Quiritary soil, and thus endowed with a special immunity. … The earlier emperors had, indeed, exercised a jealous reserve in popularizing the Roman privileges; but from Claudius downwards they seem to have vied with one another in the facility with which they conferred them as a boon, or imposed them as a burden. … The practice of purchasing Civitas was undoubtedly common under Claudius. … Neither Hadrian, as hastily affirmed by St. Chrysostom, nor his next successor, as has been inferred from a confusion of names, was the author of the decree by which the Roman franchise was finally communicated to all the subjects of the empire. Whatever the progress of enfranchisement may have been, this famous consummation was not effected till fifty years after our present date, by the act of Autoninus Caracalla [A. D. 211-217]."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 67, with foot-note.

----------ROMAN CITIZENSHIP: End--------

ROMAN CITY FESTIVAL.

The "Roman chief festival or festival of the city (ludi maximi, Romani) … was an extraordinary thanksgiving festival celebrated in honour of the Capitoline Jupiter and the gods dwelling along with him, ordinarily in pursuance of a vow made by the general before battle, and therefore usually observed on the return home of the burgess-force in autumn. A festal procession proceeded toward the Circus staked off between the Palatine and Aventine. … In each species of contest there was but one competition, and that between not more that two competitors."

_T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 1, chapter 15. _

{2652}

ROMAN COINAGE AND MONEY.

See MONEY AND BANKING: ROME.

ROMAN COMITIA.

See COMITIA CENTURIATA, AND COMITIA CURIATA.

ROMAN CONSULS.

See CONSUL.

ROMAN CONTIONES.

See CONTIONES.

ROMAN DECEMVIRS.

See DECEMVIRS.

ROMAN EDUCATION.

See EDUCATION, ROMAN.

----------ROMAN EMPIRE: Start--------

ROMAN EMPIRE: B. C. 31. Its beginning, and after.

See ROME: B. C. 31, and after.

ROMAN EMPIRE: A. D. 476. Interruption of the line of Emperors in the West.

See ROME: A. D. 455-476.

ROMAN EMPIRE: A. D. 800. Charlemagne's restoration of the Western Empire.

See GERMANY: A. D. 800.

ROMAN EMPIRE: A. D. 843-951. Dissolution of the Carolingian fabric.

See ITALY: A. D. 843-951.

----------ROMAN EMPIRE: End--------

----------ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: Start--------

ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: A. D. 963. Founded by Otto the Great. Later Origin of the Name.

"The Holy Roman Empire, taking the name in the sense which it commonly bore in later centuries, as denoting the sovereignty of Germany and Italy vested in a Germanic prince, is the creation of Otto the Great. Substantially, it is true, as well as technically, it was a prolongation of the Empire of Charles [Charlemagne]; and it rested (as will be shewn in the sequel) upon ideas essentially the same as those which brought about the coronation of A. D. 800. … This restored Empire, which professed itself a continuation of the Carolingian, was in many respects different. It was less wide, including, if we reckon strictly, only Germany proper and two-thirds of Italy; or counting in subject but separate kingdoms, Burgundy, Bohemia, Moravia, Poland, Denmark, perhaps Hungary. Its character was less ecclesiastical. Otto exalted indeed the spiritual potentates of his realm, and was earnest in spreading Christianity among the heathen: he was master of the Pope and De·fender of the Holy Roman Church. But religion held a less important place in his mind and his administration. … It was also less Roman. … Under him the Germans became not only a united nation, but were at once raised on a pinnacle among European peoples as the imperial race, the possessors of Rome and Rome's authority. While the political connection with Italy stirred their spirit, it brought with it a knowledge and culture hitherto unknown." It was not until the reign of Frederick Barbarossa that the epithet "Holy" was prefixed to the title of the revived Roman Empire. "Of its earlier origin, under Conrad II (the Salic), which some have supposed, there is no documentary trace, though there is also no proof to the contrary. So far as is known it occurs first in the famous Privilege of Austria, granted by Frederick in the fourth year of his reign, the second of his empire. … Used occasionally by Henry VI and Frederick II, it is more frequent under their successors. William, Richard, Rudolf, till after Charles IV's time it becomes habitual, for the last few centuries indispensable. Regarding the origin of so singular a title many theories have been advanced. … We need not, however, be in any great doubt as to its true meaning and purport. … Ever since Hildebrand had claimed for the priesthood exclusive sanctity and supreme jurisdiction, the papal party had not ceased to speak of the civil power as being, compared with that of their own chief, merely secular, earthly, profane. It may be conjectured that, to meet this reproach, no less injurious than insulting, Frederick or his advisers began to use in public documents the expression 'Holy Empire'; thereby wishing to assert the divine institution and religious duties of the office he held. … It is almost superfluous to observe that the beginning of the title 'Holy' has nothing to do with the beginning of the Empire itself. Essentially and substantially, the Holy Roman Empire was, as has been shewn already, the creation of Charles the Great. Looking at it more technically, as the monarchy, not of the whole West, like that of Charles, but of Germany and Italy, with a claim, which was never more than a claim, to universal sovereignty, its beginning is fixed by most of the German writers, whose practice has been followed in the text, at the coronation of Otto the Great. But the title was at least one, and probably two centuries later."

J. Bryce, The Holy Roman Empire, chapters 6, 9 and 12, with foot-note.

Otto, or Otho, the Great, the second of the Saxon line of Germanic kings, crossed the Alps and made himself master of the distracted kingdom of Italy in 951, on the invitation of John XII, who desired his assistance against the reigning king of Italy, Berengar II, and who offered him the imperial coronation (there had been no acknowledged emperor for forty years) as his reward. He easily reduced Berengar to vassalage, and, after receiving the imperial crown from Pope John, he did not scruple to depose that licentious and turbulent pontiff, by the voice of a synod which he convoked in St. Peter's, and to seat another in his place. Three revolts in the city of Rome, which were stirred up by the deposed pope, the emperor suppressed with a heavy hand, and he took away from the city all its forms of republican liberty, entrusting the government to the pope as his viceroy.

J. Bryce, The Holy Roman Empire, chapter 9.

ALSO IN: H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 3, part 1.

See, also, ITALY: A. D. 843-951; GERMANY: A. D. 936-973; and ROMANS: KING OF THE.

ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: 12th Century. Rise of the College of Electors.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: 13th Century. Its degradation after the fall of the Hohenstaufen. The Great Interregnum. Election of Rudolf of Hapsburg.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272.

ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: 15th Century. Its character.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493.

ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: A. D. 1806. Its end.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.

----------ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: End--------

ROMAN EQUESTRIAN ORDER.

See EQUESTRIAN ORDER.

ROMAN FAMILY AND PERSONAL NAMES.

See GENS.

ROMAN FETIALES.

See FETIALES.

ROMAN INDICTION.

See INDICTIONS.

{2653}

ROMAN LAW, and its lasting influence.

"Roman Law as taught in the writings of the Roman jurists is a science, a science of great perfection, a science so perfect as to almost approach the harmonious finish of art. But Roman Law is not only a marvellous system of the legal customs and concepts of the Romans; its value is not restricted to students of Roman Law; it has an absolute value for students of any law whatever. In other words the Romans outstripped all other nations, both ancient and modern, in the scientific construction of legal problems. They alone offer that curious example of one nation's totally eclipsing the scientific achievements of all other nations. By law, however, we here understand not all branches of law, as constitutional, criminal, pontifical, and private law, together with jurisprudence. By Roman Law we mean exclusively Roman Private Law. The writings of Roman jurists on constitutional and criminal law have been superseded and surpassed by the writings of more modern jurists. Their writings on questions of Private Law, on the other hand, occupy a unique place; they are, to the present day, considered as the inexhaustible fountain-head, and the inimitable pattern of the science of Private Law. … A Roman lawyer, and even a modern French or German lawyer—French and German Private Law being essentially Roman Law—were, and are, never obliged to ransack whole libraries of precedents to find the law covering a given case. They approach a case in the manner of a physician: carefully informing themselves of the facts underlying the case, and then eliciting the legal spark by means of close meditation on the given data according to the general principles of their science. The Corpus juris civilis is one stout volume. This one volume has sufficed to cover billions of cases during more than thirteen centuries. The principles laid down in this volume will afford ready help in almost every case of Private Law, because they emanate from Private Law alone, and have no tincture of non–legal elements."

E. Reich, Graeco-Roman Institutions, pages 3-13.

"'The Responsa prudentum,' or answers of the learned in the law, consisted of explanations of authoritative written documents. It was assumed that the written law was binding, but the responses practically modified and even overruled it. A great variety of rules was thus supposed to be educed from the Twelve Tables [see ROME: B. C. 451-449], which were not in fact to be found there. They could be announced by any jurisconsult whose opinions might, if he were distinguished, have a binding force nearly equal to enactments of the legislature. The responses were not published by their author, but were recorded and edited by his pupils, and to this fact the world is indebted for the educational treatises, called Institutes or Commentaries, which are among the most remarkable features of the Roman system. The distinction between the 'responses' and the 'case law' of England should be noticed. The one consists of expositions by the bar, and the other by the bench. It might have been expected that such a system would have popularized the law. This was not the fact. Weight was only attached to the responses of conspicuous men who were masters of the principles as well as details of jurisprudence. The great development of legal principles at Rome was due to this method of producing law. Under the English system no judge can enunciate a principle until an actual controversy arises to which the rule can be applied; under the Roman theory, there was no limit to the question to which a response might be given, except the skill and ingenuity of the questioner. Every possible phase of a legal principle could thus be examined, and the result would show the symmetrical product of a single master mind. This method of developing law nearly ceased at the fall of the republic. The Responses were systematized and reduced into compendia. The right to make responses was limited by Augustus to a few jurisconsults. The edict of the Prætor became a source of law, and a great school of jurists, containing such men as Ulpian, Paulus, Gaius, and Papinian, arose, who were authors of treatises rather than of responses."

_T. W. Dwight, Introduction to Maine's "Ancient Law."_

"Apart from the more general political conditions on which jurisprudence also, and indeed jurisprudence especially depends, the causes of the excellence of the Roman civil law lie mainly in two features: first, that the plaintiff and defendant were specially obliged to explain and embody in due and binding form the grounds of the demand and of the objection to comply with it; and secondly, that the Romans appointed a permanent machinery for the edictal development of their law, and associated it immediately with practice. By the former the Romans precluded the pettifogging practices of advocates, by the latter they obviated incapable law-making, so far as such things can be prevented at all; and by means of both in conjunction they satisfied, as far as is possible, the two conflicting requirements, that law shall constantly be fixed, and that it shall constantly be in accordance with the spirit of the age. … This state [Rome], which made the highest demands on its burgesses and carried the idea of subordinating the individual to the interest of the whole further than any state before or since has done, only did and only could do so by itself removing the barriers to intercourse and unshackling liberty quite as much as it subjected it to restriction. In permission or in prohibition the law was always absolute. … A contract did not ordinarily furnish a ground of action, but where the right of the creditor was acknowledged, it was so all-powerful that there was no deliverance for the poor debtor, and no humane or equitable consideration was shown towards him. It seemed as if the law found a pleasure in presenting on all sides its sharpest spikes, in drawing the most extreme consequences, in forcibly obtruding on the bluntest understanding the tyrannic nature of the idea of right. The poetical form and the genial symbolism, which so pleasingly prevail in the Germanic legal ordinances, were foreign to the Roman; in his law all was clear and precise; no symbol was employed, no institution was superfluous. It was not cruel; everything necessary was performed without tedious ceremony, even the punishment of death; that a free man could not be tortured was a primitive maxim of Roman law, to obtain which other peoples have had to struggle for thousands of years. Yet this law was frightful in its inexorable severity, which we cannot suppose to have been very greatly mitigated by humanity in practice, for it was really the law of the people; more terrible than Venetian piombi and chambers of torture was that series of living entombments which the poor man saw yawning before him in the debtors' towers of the rich. But the greatness of Rome was involved in, and was based upon, the fact that the Roman people ordained for itself and endured a system of law, in which the eternal principles of freedom and of subordination, of property and of legal redress, reigned and still at the present day reign unadulterated and unmodified."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 1, chapters 8 and 11 (volume 1).

{2654}

"Though hard to realise, and especially so for Englishmen, it is true that modern Europe owes to the Romans its ancient inherited sense of the sacredness of a free man's person and property, and its knowledge of the simplest and most rational methods by which person and property may be secured with least inconvenience to the whole community. The nations to come after Rome were saved the trouble of finding out all this for themselves; and it may be doubted whether any of them had the requisite genius. We in England, for example, owe the peculiar cumbrousness of our legal system to the absence of those direct Roman influences, which, on the continent, have simplified and illuminated the native legal material."

W. W. Fowler, The City-State of the Greeks and Romans, page 209.

"In all the lands which had obeyed Rome, and were included in the nominal supremacy of the revived Western Empire, it [Roman Law] acquired a prevalence and power not derived from the sanction of any distinct human authority. No such authority was for the time being strong enough to compete in men's esteem and reverence with the shadow of majesty that still clung to the relics of Roman dominion. Thus the Roman law was not merely taken as (what for many purposes and in many states it really was) a common groundwork of institutions, ideas, and method, standing towards the actual rules of a given community somewhat in the same relation as in the Roman doctrine ius gentium to ius civile; but it was conceived as having, by its intrinsic reasonableness, a kind of supreme and eminent virtue, and as claiming the universal allegiance of civilised mankind. If I may use a German term for which I cannot find a good English equivalent, its principles were accepted not as ordained by Cæsar, but as in themselves binding on the Rechtsbewusstsein of Christendom. They were part of the dispensation of Roman authority to which the champions of the Empire in their secular controversy with the Papacy did not hesitate to attribute an origin no less divine than that of the Church itself. Even in England (though not in English practice, for anything I know) this feeling left its mark. In the middle of the thirteenth century, just when our legal and judicial system was settling into its typical form, Bracton copied whole pages of the Bolognese glossator Azo. On the Continent, where there was no centralised and countervailing local authority, the Roman law dwarfed everything else. Yet the law of the Corpus Juris and the glossators was not the existing positive law of this or that place: the Roman law was said to be the common law of the Empire, but its effect was always taken as modified by the custom of the country or city. 'Stadtrecht bricht Landrecht, Landrecht bricht gemein Recht.' Thus the main object of study was not a system of actually enforced rules, but a type assumed by actual systems as their exemplar without corresponding in detail to any of them. Under such conditions it was inevitable that positive authority should be depreciated, and the method of reasoning, even for practical purposes, from an ideal fitness of things, should be exalted, so that the distinction between laws actually administered and rules elaborated by the learned as in accordance with their assumed principles was almost lost sight of."

Sir F. Pollock, Oxford Lectures, pages 30-32.

"In some of the nations of modern Continental Europe (as, for example, in France), the actual system of law is mainly of Roman descent; and in others of the same nations (as, for example in the States of Germany), the actual system of law, though not descended from the Roman, has been closely assimilated to the Roman by large importations from it. Accordingly, in most of the nations of modern Continental Europe, much of the substance of the actual system, and much of the technical language in which it is clothed, is derived from the Roman Law, and without some knowledge of the Roman Law, the technical language is unintelligible; whilst the order or arrangement commonly given to the system, imitates the exemplar of a scientific arrangement which is presented by the Institutes of Justinian. Even in our own country, a large portion of the Ecclesiastical and Equity, and some (though a smaller) portion of the Common, Law, is derived immediately from the Roman Law, or from the Roman through the Canon. Nor has the influence of the Roman Law been limited to the positive law of the modern European nations. For the technical language of this all-reaching system has deeply tinctured the language of the international law or morality which those nations affect to observe. … Much has been talked of the philosophy of the Roman Institutional writers. Of familiarity with Grecian philosophy there are few traces in their writings, and the little that they have borrowed from that source is the veriest foolishness: for example, their account of Jus naturale, in which they confound law with animal instincts; law, with all those wants and necessities of mankind which are causes of its institution. Nor is the Roman law to be resorted to as a magazine of legislative wisdom. The great Roman Lawyers are, in truth, expositors of a positive or technical system. Not Lord Coke himself is more purely technical. Their real merits lie in their thorough mastery of that system; in their command of its principles; in the readiness with which they recall, and the facility and certainty with which they apply them. In support of my own opinion of these great writers I shall quote the authority of two of the most eminent Jurists of modern times. 'The permanent value of the Corpus Juris Civilis,' says Falck, 'does not lie in the Decrees of the Emperors, but in the remains of juristical literature which have been preserved in the Pandects. Nor is it so much the matter of these juristical writings, as the scientific method employed by the authors in explicating the notions and maxims with which they have to deal, that has rendered them models to all succeeding ages, and pre-eminently fitted them to produce and to develope those qualities of the mind which are requisite to form a Jurist.' And Savigny says, 'It has been shown above, that, in our science, all results depend on the possession of leading principles; and it is exactly this possession upon which the greatness of the Roman jurists rests. The notions and maxims of their science do not appear to them to be the creatures of their own will; they are actual beings, with whose existence and genealogy they have become familiar from long and intimate intercourse. {2655} Hence their whole method of proceeding has a certainty which is found nowhere else except in mathematics, and it may be said without exaggeration that they calculate with their ideas. If they have a case to decide, they begin by acquiring the most vivid and distinct perception of it, and we see before our eyes the rise and progress of the whole affair, and all the changes it undergoes. It is as if this particular case were the germ whence the whole science was to be developed. Hence, with them, theory and practice are not in fact distinct; their theory is so thoroughly worked out as to be fit for immediate application, and their practice is uniformly ennobled by scientific treatment. In every principle they see a case to which it may be applied; in every case, the rule by which it is determined; and in the facility with which they pass from the general to the particular and the particular to the general, their mastery is indisputable.' In consequence of this mastery of principles, of their perfect consistency ('elegantia') and of the clearness of the method in which they are arranged, there is no positive system of law which it is so easy to seize as a whole. The smallness of its volume tends to the same end."

J. Austin, Lectures on Jurisprudence, volume 3, pages 358-361.

"A glance at the history of those countries in Europe that did not adopt Roman Law will prove and illustrate the political origin of the 'reception' of this law in Germany and France still more forcibly. The Kingdom of Hungary never adopted the theory or practice of Roman Law. This seems all the more strange since Hungary used Latin as the official language of her legislature, laws, and law–courts down to the first quarter of this century. A country so intensely imbued with the idiom of Rome would seem to be quite likely to adopt also the law of Rome. This, however, the Hungarians never did. Their law is essentially similar to the common law of England, in that it is derived mainly from precedents and usage. The unwillingness of the Hungarians to adopt Roman Law was based on a political consideration. Roman Law, they noticed, requires a professional and privileged class of jurists who administer law to the exclusion of all other classes. In German territories the privileged class of civilians were in the service of the rulers. But it so happened that ever since 1526 the ruler, or at least the nominal head of Hungary, was a foreigner: the Archduke of Austria, or Emperor of Germany. Hence to introduce Roman Law in Hungary would have been tantamount to surrendering the law of the country to the administration of foreigners, or of professors, who had a vital interest to work in the interest of their foreign employer, the Archduke of Austria. Consequently the Hungarians prudently abstained from the establishment of numerous Universities, and persistently refused to adopt Roman Law, the scientific excellence of which they otherwise fully acknowledged. For, the Hungarians always were, and to the present moment still are, the only nation on the continent who maintained an amount of political liberty and self·government quite unknown to the rest of continental Europe, particularly in the last two centuries. The same reason applies to England. England never adopted Roman Law, because it was against the interests of English liberty to confide the making and interpretation of law to the hands of a privileged class of jurists. As said before, Roman Law cannot be adopted unless you adopt a privileged class of professional jurists into the bargain. The hatred of the English was not so much a hatred of civil law, but of the civilians. These jurists develop law on the strength of theoretical principles, and actual cases are not decided according to former judgments given in similar cases, but by principles obtained through theoretico-practical speculation. Hence there is no division of questions of law and fact in civil cases; nor is there, in a system of Roman Private Law, any room for juries, and thus law is taken completely out of the hands of the people. This, however, the English would not endure, and thus they naturally fell to confiding their law to their judges. English common law is judge-made law."

E. Reich, Graeco-Roman Institutions, pages 62-63.

See, also, CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS; and EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: ITALY.

ROMAN LEGION.

See LEGION, ROMAN.

ROMAN LIBRARIES.

See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT: ROME.

ROMAN MEDICAL SCIENCE.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 1ST CENTURY, and 2D CENTURY.

ROMAN PEACE.

The benefits conferred upon the world by the universal dominion of Rome were of quite inestimable value. First of these benefits, … was the prolonged peace that was enforced throughout large portions of the world where chronic warfare had hitherto prevailed. The 'pax romana' has perhaps been sometimes depicted in exaggerated colours; but as compared with all that had preceded, and with all that followed, down to the beginning of the nineteenth century, it deserved the encomiums it has received."

J. Fiske, American Political Ideas viewed from the Standpoint of Universal History, lecture 2.

ROMAN PONTIFICES.

See AUGURS.

ROMAN PRÆTORS.

See CONSUL.

ROMAN PROCONSUL AND PROPRÆTOR.

See PROCONSUL.

ROMAN QUESTION, The.

See ITALY: A. D. 1862-1866.

ROMAN ROADS IN BRITAIN.

"Four principal lines of road have been popularly known as 'the four Roman ways.' In the time of Edward the Confessor, and probably much earlier, there were four roads in England protected by the king's peace. These were called Watlinge-strete, Fosse, Hickenilde-strete, and Ermine-strete. Watling-street runs from London to Wroxeter. The Fosse from the sea coast near Seaton in Devonshire to Lincoln. The Ikenild·street from Iclingham near Bury St. Edmund's in Suffolk, to Wantage in Berkshire, and on to Cirencester and Gloucester. The Erming-street ran through the Fenny district of the east of England. These streets seem to have represented a combination of those portions of the Roman roads which in later times were adopted and kept in repair for the sake of traffic. … The name of 'Watling-street' became attached to other roads, as the Roman road beyond the Northumbrian wall, which crossed the Tyne at Corbridge and ran to the Frith of Forth at Cramond, bears that name; and the Roman road beyond Uriconium (Wroxeter) to Bravinium (Leintwarden) Salop, is also called Watling-street. The street in Canterbury through which the road from London to Dover passes is known as Watling-street, and a street in London also bears that name. … Two lines of road also bear the name of the Icknield-street, or Hikenilde-street; but there is some reason to believe that the Icknield-street was only a British trackway and never became a true Roman road."

H. M. Scarth, Roman Britain, chapter 13.

{2656}

"In the fifth year after the Conquest, inquisition was made throughout the kingdom into the ancient laws and customs of England. … From this source we learn, that there were, at that time in England four great roads protected by the King's Peace, of which two ran lengthways through the island, and two crossed it, and that the names of the four were respectively, Watlinge-strete, Fosse, Hikenilde-strete and Erming-strete. These are the roads which are popularly but incorrectly known as 'the four Roman ways.' … The King's Peace was a high privilege. Any offence committed on these high ways was tried, not in the local court, where local influence might interfere with the administration of justice, but before the king's own officers."

E. Guest, Origines Celticae, volume 2: The Four Roman Ways.

See, also, WATLING STREET.

ROMAN ROADS IN ITALY.

See ÆMILIAN WAY; APPIAN WAY; AURELIAN ROAD: CASSIAN ROAD; POSTUMIAN ROAD; and ROME: B. C. 295-191.

ROMAN SENATE.

See SENATE, ROMAN.

ROMAN VESTALS.

See VESTAL VIRGINS.

ROMAN WALLS IN BRITAIN.

There were two great fortified walls constructed by the Romans in Britain, but the name is most often applied to the first one, which was built under the orders of the Emperor Hadrian, from the Solway to the Tyne, 70 miles long and from 18 to 19 feet high, of solid masonry, with towers at intervals and with ditches throughout. In the reign of Antoninus Pius a second fortified line, farther to the north, extending from the Forth to the Clyde, was constructed. This latter was a rampart of earth connecting numerous forts. Hadrian's wall was strengthened at a later time by Severus and is sometimes called by his name. Popularly it is called "Graham's Dike." Both walls were for the protection of Roman Britain from the wild tribes of Caledonia.

E. Guest, Origines Celticae, volume 2, page 88-94.

ALSO IN: C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 66-67.

ROMANCE LANGUAGE, Earliest Monument of.

See STRASBURG: A. D. 842.

ROMANIA, The Empire of.

The new feudal empire, constituted by the Crusaders and the Venetians, after their conquest of Constantinople, and having the great and venerable but half ruined capital of the Byzantines for its seat, received the name of the Empire of Romania. The reign of its first emperor, the excellent Baldwin of Flanders, was brought to a tragical end in little more than a year from his coronation. Summoned to quell a revolt at Adrianople, he was attacked by the king of Bulgaria, defeated, taken prisoner and murdered within a year by his savage captor. He was succeeded on the throne by his brother Henry, a capable, energetic and valiant prince; but all the ability and all the vigor of Henry could not give cohesion and strength to an empire which was false in its constitution and predestined to decay. On Henry's death, without children (A. D. 1216), his sister Yoland's husband, Peter of Courtenay, a French baron, was elected emperor; but that unfortunate prince, on attempting to reach Constantinople by a forced march through the hostile Greek territory of Epirus, was taken captive and perished in an Epirot prison. His eldest son, Philip of Namur, wisely refused the imperial dignity; a younger son, Robert, accepted it, and reigned feebly until 1228, when he died. Then the venerable John de Brienne, ex-king of Jerusalem, was elected emperor-regent for life, the crown to pass on his death to Baldwin of Courtenay, a young brother of Robert. "John de Brienne died in 1237, after living to witness his empire confined to a narrow circuit round the walls of Constantinople. Baldwin II. prolonged the existence of the empire by begging assistance from the Pope and the king of France; and he collected the money necessary for maintaining his household and enjoying his precarious position, by selling the holy relics preserved by the Eastern Church [such, for example, as the crown of thorns, the bonds, the sponge and the cup of the crucifixion, the rod of Moses, etc.]. He was fortunate in finding a liberal purchaser in St. Louis. … At length, in the year 1261, a division of the Greek army [of the empire of Nicæa] surprised Constantinople, expelled Baldwin, and put an end to the Latin power, without the change appearing to be a revolution of much importance beyond the walls of the city."

See GREEK EMPIRE OF NICÆA: A. D. 1204-1261

G. Finlay, History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders, chapter 4.

In the last days of the sham empire, Baldwin II. maintained his court "by tearing the copper from the domes of the public buildings erected by the Byzantine emperors, which he coined into money, and by borrowing gold from Venetian bankers, in whose hands he placed his eldest son Philip as a pledge."

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, from 716 to 1453, book 4, chapter 1, section 3 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 61.

For an account of the creation of the Empire of Romania.

See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204-1205.

ROMANOFFS, Origin of the dynasty of the.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1533-1682.

ROMANS, King of the.

Henry II.,—St. Henry by canonization—the last of the German emperors of the House of Saxony (A. D. 1002-1024), abstained from styling himself "Emperor," for some years, until he had gone to Rome and received the imperial crown from the hands of the Pope. Meantime he invented and assumed the title of King of the Romans. His example was followed by his successors. The King of the Romans in later history was Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire in embryo.

S. A. Dunham, History of the Germanic Empire, book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1).

"It was not till the reign of Maximilian that the actual coronation at Rome was dispensed with, and the title of Emperor taken immediately after the election."

H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 3, part 1.

ROMANUS, Pope, A. D. 897-898.

Romanus I. (colleague of Constantine VII.), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), 919-944.

Romanus II., Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), 959-963.

Romanus III., Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), 1028-1034.

Romanus IV., Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 1067-1071.

{2656a} {2656b}

A Logical Outline of Roman History

IN WHICH THE DOMINANT CONDITIONS AND INFLUENCES ARE DISTINGUISHED BY COLORS.

Physical or material. (orange) Social and political. (green) Intellectual, moral and religious. (brown)

Geographical position. (Orange)

Three Latin and Sabine tribes of an early day established their settlements on neighboring hills, by the banks of the Tiber, in the midland of Italy, which is the midland of the Mediterranean or midland sea. They were throned, as it were, at the center of the only wide dominion in which a virile and energetic civilization could rise in ancient times.

Patricians and Plebeians. (Green)

The union of these three tribes formed the patrician nucleus of Rome. Around them gathered another population of kindred blood, which acquired a certain footing of association with them, but not immediately on equal terms. The precedence and superiority of the primal families, in rank and in rights, was jealously maintained, and the later-coming plebs were received into a pseudo-citizenship which carried more burdens than privileges with it.

By what impulse of character, or through what favor of circumstance, at the beginning, this infant city-state grew masterful in war, over all its neighbors, none can tell. But as it did so, the sturdy plebeian populace which fought its battles resented more and more the greedy monopoly of offices and of conquered lands to which the patricians clung, and a struggle between classes occurred which shaped the domestic politics of Rome for more than two centuries.

B. C. 509, Founding of the Republic. B. C. 492, Tribunes o£ the Plebs.

Before that contest came to the surface of history, the oligarchy of the city had cast out the kings which were its early chiefs, and had put two yearly-chosen consuls in their place, thus founding the great Roman Republic, with a purely aristocratic constitution. Then the battle of the plebs for equality of rights and powers was promptly opened, and the long, significant process of the democratizing of the state began. By their first victory the commons seemed, for their own leadership and defense, a remarkable magistracy, protected by sanctities and armed with powers which never have been used in government elsewhere, before or since. With that great tribunician authority, invincible when capably and boldly wielded, they won their way, step by step, to equality in the high offices and sacred colleges of the state; to legislative equality in their assembly; to legality of intermarriage with the patrician class; and to participation in the public lands.

B. C. 480-275. Conquest of Italy. B. C. 264-202. Punic wars B. C. 214-146. Expanding Dominion.

But while plebs and patricians thus strove with each other at home, they were united against their neighbors in many wars, which seldom turned to their disadvantage. Æquians, Volscians, Etruscans, Latin allies, Samnites, Gauls, Greeks of south Italy, yielded in turn to their arms, until the whole Italian peninsula had been brought under Roman rule. Then followed intrusion in Sicily, collision with Carthage in that island, and the half century of Punic wars, which tried the Republic to the extremity of its powers, but which left it with no rival in the Mediterranean world, From that time the career of Roman conquest was rapidly pursued in widening fields. Sicily, Spain, Greece, Macedonia, Asia Minor, Southern Gaul, Northern Africa, submitted as provinces to the proconsuls of Rome.

Corruption. (brown)

But the health of the commonwealth waned as its greatness waxed. It was corrupted by the spoils of conquest and the streams of tribute money that flowed from three continents into its hands. It was leprous in its whole system with the infection of slavery.

Social and Political Degeneration. (green)

A middle class had practically disappeared. Freemen had been driven from industrial callings by servile competition; the small farms of rural Rome had been swallowed up in great slave worked estates; public lands had been drawn by one trick of law or another, into private hands. The greater mass of the common people had degenerated to a worthless mob. The democratic power which their ancestors won still belonged to them, but they had lost the sense and the spirit to exercise it, except fitfully and threateningly, for purposes that were generally base. A new nobility had risen out of the plebeian ranks; the senate, reinforced by it, and helped by the exigencies of the long period of war, had recovered control of government, keeping ascendancy over the mob by political arts and bribes.

B. C. 133-121. The Gracchi. B. C. 90-88. The Social War, B. C. 88-45. Civil Wars.

Thus came the fatal time when demagogues played with the passions of that fickle mob which bore the awful sovereignty of Rome in its keeping; and when patriots were forced to be as demagogues, if they sought to lift Roman citizenship from its muddy degradation. In the undertakings of the Gracchi, perhaps something of both demagogue and patriot was combined; but what they did only shook the decaying political fabric and unsettled it more. The extension of Roman citizenship to the Italian allies, which Caius Gracchus contended for, and which might have grounded the Republic on broad bases of nationality, was yielded in the next generation, but too late, and after a ruinous war. From the embers of that fiery Social War broke the flames of civil strife in which the old constitution was finally consumed. Marius, Sulla, Pompeius, Cæsar, were distinguished among its destroyers; Cicero and Cato earned their immortality in its defense.

B. C. 45-A. D. 486, The Empire.

By the genius of Cæsar a new sovereignty—an imperial autocracy—was founded, on the ruins of the shattered Republic. By the shrewdness of his wise nephew, Octavius, its enduring organization was shaped. The mighty fabric of the Roman Empire which then arose, to dominate the world for centuries, and to dominate the history of the world perhaps forever, owed its greatness altogether to the effective organization of government which it embodied. It inherited all the corruptions and diseases in society which had sickened and destroyed the Republic; but it extinguished factions at the seat of power, established authority there, and perfected a radiating mechanism of provincial administration such as had not been known in human experience before. Hence, emperors might be madmen or fiends or fools, as many among them were, and Rome might be a sink of all vices and miseries, as it commonly was, and the whole Empire might be grievously oppressed, as it seldom failed to be; but the working of the administrative system went on, with little disturbance or change,—so mighty and irresistible in its machinery that it seemed to mankind like a part of the natural world, and they lost the ability to think of any different political state.

Christianity. (brown)

Christianity, springing up in Judæa within the first century of the Empire, spread through and around it like an interlacing vine,—sweet and wholesome in its early fruits, strong as a bond, powerful as a regenerating influence. But when the ecclesiasticism of a politically fashioned Church had been grafted on the Christian vine, it bore then the evil seeds of new corruption, new discord, new maladies for the Roman world.

A. D. 476. Fall of the Empire in the West. (green)

So there came, at last, a time when the long-enduring frame of Roman government could no longer bear the increasing dead-weight of social paralysis within and the increasing pressure of barbaric enemies from without. Of real vitality in the Empire there had been little for half-a-century before its fall in the West.

A. D. 476-1453. Survival of the Eastern Empire.

It survived in the East, because its Greek capital was more impregnable, and more commandingly placed for the continued centralization of a waning power; and because habit and routine have more potency in the Eastern than in the Western world.

A. D. 800. Revival of the Western Empire.

Even Western Europe obeyed again, after more than four centuries, the obstinate habit of homage to Rome, when it restored the Empire of the Cæsars, though less in fact than in name.

{2657}

----------ROME: Start--------

ROME: The beginning of the City-State and the origin of its name. The three tribes of original Romans who formed the Patrician order.- The Plebs and their inferior citizenship.

"About fourteen miles up from the mouth of the river Tiber, hills of moderate elevation rise on both banks of the stream, higher on the right, lower on the left bank. With the latter group there has been closely associated for at least two thousand five hundred years the name of the Romans. We are unable, of course, to tell how or when that name arose; this much only is certain, that in the oldest form of it known to us the inhabitants of the canton are called not Romans, but (by a shifting of sound that frequently occurs in the earlier period of a language, but fell very early in abeyance in Latin) Ramnians (Ramnes), a fact which constitutes an expressive testimony to the immemorial antiquity of the name. Its derivation cannot be given with certainty; possibly Ramnes may mean 'foresters,' or 'bushmen.' But they were not the only dwellers on the hills by the bank of the Tiber. In the earliest division of the burgesses of Rome a trace has been preserved of the fact that that body arose out of the amalgamation of three cantons once probably independent, the Ramnians, Tities, and Luceres, into a single commonwealth—in other words, out of such a 'synoikismos' as that from which Athens arose in Attica. The great antiquity of this threefold division of the community is perhaps best evinced by the fact that the Romans, in matters especially of constitutional law, regularly used the forms tribuere ('to divide into three') and tribus ('a third') in the general sense of 'to divide' and 'a part,' and the latter expression (tribus) like our 'quarter,' early lost its original signification of number. … That the Ramnians were a Latin stock cannot be doubted, for they gave their name to the new Roman commonwealth, and therefore must have substantially determined the nationality of the united community. Respecting the origin of the Luceres nothing can be affirmed, except that there is no difficulty in the way of our assigning them, like the Ramnians, to the Latin stock. The second of these communities, on the other hand, is with one consent derived from Sabina. … And, as in the older and more credible traditions, without exception, the Tities take precedence of the Ramnians, it is probable that the intruding Tities compelled the older Ramnians to accept the 'synoikismos.' … Long, in all probability, before an urban settlement arose on the Tiber, these Ramnians, Tities, and Luceres, at first separate, afterwards united, had their stronghold on the Roman hills, and tilled their fields from the surrounding villages. The 'wolf festival' (Lupercalia), which the gens of the Quinctii celebrated on the Palatine hill, was probably a tradition from these primitive ages—a festival of husbandmen and shepherds, which more than any other preserved the homely pastimes of patriarchal simplicity, and, singularly enough, maintained itself longer than all the other heathen festivals in Christian Rome. From these settlements the later Rome arose."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 1, chapter 4.

"Rome did not seem to be a single city; it appeared like a confederation of several cities, each one of which was attached by its origin to another confederation. It was the centre where the Latins, Etruscans, Sabellians, and Greeks met. Its first king was a Latin; the second, a Sabine; the fifth was, we are told, the son of a Greek; the sixth was an Etruscan. Its language was composed of the most diverse elements. The Latin predominated, but Sabellian roots were numerous, and more Greek radicals were found in it than in any other of the dialects of Central Italy. As to its name, no one knew to what language that belonged. According to some, Rome was a Trojan word; according to others, a Greek word. There are reasons for believing it to be Latin, but some of the ancients thought it to be Etruscan. The names of Roman families also attest a great diversity of origin. … The effect of this mixing of the most diverse nations was, that from the beginning Rome was related to all the peoples that it knew. It could call itself Latin with the Latins, Sabine with the Sabines, Etruscan with the Etruscans, and Greek with the Greeks. Its national worship was also an assemblage of several quite different worships, each one of which attached it to one of these nations."

Fustel de Coulanges, The Ancient City, book 5, chapter 2.

"The whole history of the world has been determined by the geological fact that at a point a little below the junction of the Tiber and the Anio the isolated hills stand nearer to one another than most of the other hills of Latium. On a site marked out above all other sites for dominion, the centre of Italy, the centre of Europe, as Europe then was, a site at the junction of three of the great nations of Italy, and which had the great river as its highway to lands beyond the bounds of Italy, stood two low hills, the hill which bore the name of Latin Saturn, and the hill at the meaning of whose name of Palatine scholars will perhaps guess for ever. These two hills, occupied by men of two of the nations of Italy, stood so near to one another that a strait choice indeed was laid on those who dwelled on them. They must either join together on terms closer than those which commonly united Italian leagues, or they must live a life of border warfare more ceaseless, more bitter, than the ordinary warfare of Italian enemies. Legend, with all likelihood, tells us that warfare was tried; history, with all certainty, tells us that the final choice was union. The two hills were fenced with a single wall; the men who dwelled on them changed from wholly separate communities into tribes of a single city. Changes of the same kind took place on not a few spots of Greece and Italy; not a few of the most famous cities of both lands grew on this wise out of the union of earlier detached settlements. But no other union of the kind, not even that which called Sparta into being out of five villages of an older day, could compare in its effects on all later time with the union of those two small hill-fortresses into a single city. For that city was Rome; the hill of Saturn became the site of Rome's capitol. the scene of her triumphs, the home of her patron gods. The hill on the other side of the swampy dale became the dwelling-place of Rome's Cæsars, and handed on its name of Palatium as the name for the homes of all the kings of the earth. {2658} Around those hills as a centre, Latium, Italy, Mediterranean Europe, were gathered in, till the world was Roman, or rather till the world was Rome. … Three tribes, settlers on three hills, were the elements of which the original commonwealth was made. Whether there was anything like a nobility within the tribes themselves, whether certain houses had any precedence, any preferences in the disposal of offices, we have no means of judging. That certain houses are far more prominent in legend and history than others may suggest such a thought, but does not prove it. But one thing is certain; these three tribes, these older settlers, were the original Roman people, which for a while numbered no members but themselves. They were the patres, the fathers, a name which in its origin meant no more than such plain names as goodman, housefather, and the like. In the Roman polity the father only could be looked on as a citizen in the highest sense; his children, his grand-children, were in his power, from which, just like slaves, they could be released only by his own special act. Such was the origin of the name fathers, patres, patricians, a name round which such proud associations gathered, as the three tribes who had once been the whole Roman people shrank up into a special noble class in the midst of a new Roman people which grew up around them, but which they did not admit to the same rights as themselves. The incorporation of a third tribe marks the end of the first period of Roman history. These were the Luceres of the Cœlian, admitted perhaps at first with rights not quite on a level with those of the two earlier tribes, the Ramnes of the Palatine, the oldest Romans of all, and the Tities of the Capitoline or hill of Saturn. The oldest Roman people was now formed. No fourth tribe was ever admitted; the later tribes of Rome, it must be remembered, are a separate division which have nothing to do with these old patrician tribes. And it must have been a most rare favour for either individuals or whole houses to be received into any of the three original tribes. … Now, if the privileged body of citizens is small, and if circumstances tend to make the settlement of non-privileged residents large, here is one of the means by which a privileged order in the narrower sense, a nobility in the midst of a nation or people may arise. An order which takes in few or no new members tends to extinction; if it does not die out, it will at least sensibly lessen. But there is no limit to the growth of the non-privileged class outside. Thus the number of the old burghers will be daily getting smaller, the number of the new residents will be daily getting larger, till those who once formed the whole people put on step by step the character of an exclusive nobility in the midst of the extended nation which has grown up around them. By this time they have acquired all the attributes of nobility, smallness of numbers, antiquity, privilege. And their possession of the common land—a possession shared constantly by a smaller number—is likely to give them a fourth attribute which, vulgarly at least, goes to swell the conception of nobility, the attribute of wealth. … Thus around the original people of Rome, the populus, the patres, the three ancient tribes, the settlers on the three earliest hills of Rome, arose a second people, the plebs. The whole history of Rome is a history of incorporation. The first union between the Capitoline and Palatine hills was the first stage of the process which at last made Romans of all the nations round the Mediterranean sea. But the equal incorporation of which that union was the type had now ceased, not to begin again for ages. Whatever amount of belief we give to the legends of Roman wars and conquests under the kings, we can hardly doubt that the territory of several neighbouring towns was incorporated with the Roman state, and that their people, whether they removed to Rome or went on occupying their own lands elsewhere, became Romans, but not as yet full Romans. They were Romans in so far as they ceased to be members of any other state, in so far as they obeyed the laws of Rome, and served in the Roman armies. But they were not Romans in the sense of being admitted into the original Roman body; they had no votes in the original Roman assembly; they had no share in its public land; they were not admissible to the high offices of the state. They had an organization of their own; they had their own assemblies, their own magistrates, their own sacred rights, different in many things from those of the older Roman People. And we must remember that, throughout the Roman history, when any town or district was admitted to any stage, perfect or imperfect, of Roman citizenship, its people were admitted without regard to any distinctions which had existed among them in their elder homes. The patricians of a Latin town admitted to the Roman franchise became plebeians at Rome. Thus from the beginning, the Roman plebs contained families which, if the word 'noble' has any real meaning, were fully as noble as any house of the three elder tribes. Not a few too of the plebeians were rich; rich and poor, they were the more part land-owners; no mistake can be greater than that which looks on the Roman plebs as the low multitude of a town. As we first see them, the truest aspect of them is that of a second nation within the Roman state, an inferior, a subject, nation, shut out from all political power, subject in many things to practical oppression, but which, by its very organization as a subject nation, was the more stirred up to seek, and the better enabled to obtain, full equality with the elder nation to which it stood side by side as a subject neighbour."

E. A. Freeman, The Practical Bearings of European History (Lectures to American Audiences), page 278-278, and 285-292.

See, also, ITALY, ANCIENT; LATIUM; ALBA; and SABINES.

ROME: Early character and civilization of the Romans. Opposing theories.

"That the central position of Rome, in the long and narrow peninsula of Italy, was highly favourable to her Italian dominion, and that the situation of Italy was favourable to her dominion over the countries surrounding the Mediterranean, has been often pointed out. But we have yet to ask what launched Rome in her career of conquest, and, still more, what rendered that career so different from those of ordinary conquerors? … About the only answer that we get to these questions is race. The Romans, we are told, were by nature a peculiarly warlike race. 'They were the wolves of Italy,' says Mr. Merivale, who may be taken to represent fairly the state of opinion on this subject. … {2659} But the further we inquire, the more reason there appears to be for believing that peculiarities of race are themselves originally formed by the influence of external circumstances on the primitive tribe; that, however marked and ingrained they may be, they are not congenital and perhaps not indelible. … Thus, by ascribing the achievements of the Romans to the special qualities of their race, we should not be solving the problem, but only stating it again in other terms. … What if the very opposite theory to that of the she-wolf and her foster-children should be true? What if the Romans should have owed their peculiar and unparalleled success to their having been at first not more warlike, but less warlike than their neighbours? It may seem a paradox, but we suspect that in their imperial ascendency is seen one of the earliest and not least important steps in that gradual triumph of intellect over force, even in war, which has been an essential part of the progress of civilization. The happy day may come when Science in the form of a benign old gentleman with a bald head and spectacles on nose, holding some beneficent compound in his hand, will confront a standing army, and the standing army will cease to exist. That will be the final victory of intellect. But in the meantime, our acknowledgements are due to the primitive inventors of military organization and military discipline. They shivered Goliath's spear. A mass of comparatively unwarlike burghers, unorganized and undisciplined, though they may be the hope of civilization from their mental and industrial qualities, have as little of collective as they have of individual strength in war; they only get in each other's way, and fall singly victims to the prowess of a gigantic barbarian. He who first thought of combining their force by organization, so as to make their numbers tell, and who taught them to obey officers, to form regularly for action, and to execute united movements at the word of command, was, perhaps, as great a benefactor of the species as he who grew the first corn, or built the first canoe. What is the special character of the Roman legends, so far as they relate to war? Their special character is that they are legends not of personal prowess but of discipline. Rome has no Achilles. The great national heroes, Camillus, Cincinnatus, Papirius Cursor, Fabius Maximus, Manlius, are not prodigies of personal strength and valour, but commanders and disciplinarians. The most striking incidents are incidents of discipline. The most striking incident of all is the execution by a commander of his own son for having gained a victory against orders. 'Disciplinam militarem,' Manlius is made to say, 'qua stetit ad hanc diem Romana res.' Discipline was the great secret of Roman ascendency in war. … But how came military discipline to be so specially cultivated by the Romans? … Dismissing the notion of occult qualities of race, we look for a rational explanation in the circumstances of the plain which was the cradle of the Roman Empire. It is evident that in the period designated as that of the kings, when Rome commenced her career of conquest, she was, for that time and country, a great and wealthy city. This is proved by the works of the kings, the Capitoline Temple, the excavation for the Circus Maximus, the Servian Wall, and above all the Cloaca Maxima. Historians have indeed undertaken to give us a very disparaging picture of the ancient Rome. … But the Cloaca Maxima is in itself conclusive evidence of a large population, of wealth, and of a not inconsiderable degree of civilization. Taking our stand upon this monument, and clearing our vision entirely of Romulus and his asylum, we seem dimly to perceive the existence of a deep prehistoric background, richer than is commonly supposed in the germs of civilization,—a remark which may in all likelihood be extended to the background of history in general. Nothing surely can be more grotesque than the idea of a set of wolves, like the Norse pirates before their conversion to Christianity, constructing in their den the Cloaca Maxima. That Rome was comparatively great and wealthy is certain. We can hardly doubt that she was a seat of industry and commerce, and that the theory which represents her industry and commerce as having been developed subsequently to her conquests is the reverse of the fact. Whence, but from industry and commerce, could the population and the wealth have come? Peasant farmers do not live in cities, and plunderers do not accumulate. Rome had around her what was then a rich and peopled plain; she stood at a meeting-place of nationalities; she was on a navigable river, yet out of the reach of pirates; the sea near her was full of commerce, Etruscan, Greek, and Carthaginian. … Her patricians were financiers and money-lenders. … Even more decisive is the proof afforded by the early political history of Rome. … The institutions which we find existing in historic times must have been evolved by some such struggle between the orders of patricians and plebeians as that which Livy presents to us. And these politics, with their parties and sections of parties, their shades of political character, the sustained interest which they imply in political objects, their various devices and compromises, are not the politics of a community of peasant farmers, living apart each on his own farm and thinking of his own crops: they are the politics of the quick-witted and gregarious population of an industrial and commercial city. … Of course when Rome had once been drawn into the career of conquest, the ascendency of the military spirit would be complete; war, and the organization of territories acquired in war, would then become the great occupation of her leading citizens; industry and commerce would fall into disesteem, and be deemed unworthy of the members of the imperial race. … Even when the Roman nobles had become a caste of conquerors and pro-consuls, they retained certain mercantile habits; unlike the French aristocracy, and aristocracies generally, they were careful keepers of their accounts, and they showed a mercantile talent for business, as well as a more than mercantile hardness, in their financial exploitation of the conquered world. Brutus and his contemporaries were usurers like the patricians of the early times. No one, we venture to think, who has been accustomed to study national character, will believe that the Roman character was formed by war alone: it was manifestly formed by war combined with business."

_Goldwin Smith, The Greatness of the Romans (Contemporary Review, May, 1878)._

A distinctly contrary theory of the primary character and early social state of the Romans is presented in the following: "The Italians were much more backward than the Greeks, for their land is turned to the west, to Spain, to Gaul, to Africa, which could teach them nothing, while Greece is turned to the east, to the coasts along which the civilisations of the Nile and the Tigris spread through so many channels. {2660} Besides, the country itself is far less stimulating to its inhabitants: compared to Greece, Italy is a continental country whose inhabitants communicate more easily by land than by sea, except in the two extreme southern peninsulas, which characteristically were occupied by Greek colonies whose earlier development was more brilliant than that of the mother country. … The equable fertility of the land was itself a hindrance. As far back as we can form any conjecture, the bulk of the people were shepherds or husbandmen; we cannot trace a time like that reflected in the Homeric poems, when high-born men of spirit went roving in their youth by land and sea, and settled down in their prime with a large stock of cattle and a fair stud of horses, to act as referees in peace and leaders in war to the cottars around. … Other differences less intelligible to us were not less weighty: the volcanic character of the western plain of central Italy, the want of a fall to the coast (which caused some of the watercourses to form marshes, and made the Tiber a terror to the Romans for its floods), told in ways as yet untraced ou the character of the inhabitants. For one thing the ancient worship of Febris and Mefitis indicates a constant liability to fever; then the air of Greece is lighter than the air of Italy, and this may be the reason that it was more inspiring. … Italian indigenous literature was of the very scantiest; its oldest element was to be found in hymns, barely metrical, and so full of repetitions as to dispense with metre. The hymns were more like spells than psalms, the singers had an object to gain rather than feelings to express. The public hymns were prayers for blessing: there were private chants to charm crops out of a neighbour's field, and bring other mischief to pass against him. Such 'evil songs' were a capital offence, though there was little, perhaps, in their form to suggest a distinction whether the victim was being bewitched or satirised. The deliberate articulate expression of spite seemed a guilt and power of itself. Besides these there were dirges at funerals, ranging between commemoration of the deceased and his ancestors, propitiation of the departed spirit, and simple lamentation. There were songs at banquets in praise of ancient worthies. … We find no trace of any poet who composed what free-born youths recited at feasts; probably they extemporised without training and attained no mastery. If a nation has strong military instincts, we find legendary or historical heroes in its very oldest traditions; if a nation has strong poetical instincts, we find the names of historical or legendary poets. In Italy we only meet with nameless fauns and prophets, whose inspired verses were perhaps on the level of Mother Shipton."

G. A. Simcox, A History of Latin Literature, volume 1, introduction.

ROME: Struggle with the Etruscans.

See ETRUSCANS.

ROME: B. C. 753. Era of the foundation of the city.

"Great doubts have been entertained, as well by ancient historians as by modern chronologists, respecting this era. Polybius fixes it to the year B. C. 751; Cato, who has been followed by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Solinus, and Eusebius, to B. C. 752; Fabius Pictor, to B. C. 747; Archbishop Usher, to B. C, 748; and Newton, to B. C. 627: Terentius Varro, however, refers it to B. C. 753; which computation was adopted by the Roman emperors, and by Plutarch, Tacitus, Dion, Aulus Gellius, Censorinus, Onuphrius, Baroius, bishop Beveridge, Stranchius, Dr. Playfair, and by most modern chronologists: Livy, Cicero, Pliny, and Velleius Paterculus occasionally adopted both the Varronian and Catonian computations. Dr. Hales has, however, determined, from history and astronomy, that the Varronian computation is correct, viz. B. C. 753."

Sir H. Nicolas, Chronology of History, page 2.

ROME: B. C. 753-510. The legendary period of the kings. Credibility of the Roman annals. Probable Etruscan domination.

"It may … be stated, as the result of this inquiry, that the narrative of Roman affairs, from the foundation of the city to the expulsion of the Tarquins, is formed out of traditionary materials. At what time the oral traditions were reduced into writing, and how much of the existing narrative was the arbitrary supplement of the historians who first framed the account which has descended to us, it is now impossible to ascertain, … The records of them, which were made before the burning of Rome, 300 B. C., were doubtless rare and meagre in the extreme; and such as there were at this time chiefly perished in the conflagration and ruin of the city. It was probably not till after this period—that is to say, about 120 years after the expulsion of the kings—and above 350 years after the era assigned for the foundation of the city, that these oral reports—these hearsay stories of many generations—began to be entered in the registers of the pontifices. … The history of the entire regal period, as respects both its external attestation and its internal probability, is tolerably uniform in its character. … Niebuhr, indeed, has drawn a broad line between the reigns of Romulus and Numa on the one hand, and those of the five last kings on the other. The former he considers to be purely fabulous and poetical; the latter he regards as belonging to the mythico-historical period, when there is a narrative resting on a historical basis, and most of the persons mentioned are real. But it is impossible to discover any ground, either in the contents of the narrative; or in its external evidence, to support this distinction. Romulus, indeed, from the form of his name, appears to be a mere personification of the city of Rome, and to have no better claim to a real existence than Hellen, Danaus, Ægyptus, Tyrrhenus, or Italus. But Numa Pompilius stands on the same ground as the remaining kings, except that he is more ancient; and the narrative of all the reigns, from the first to the last, seems to be constructed on the same principles. That the names of the kings after Romulus are real, is highly probable; during the latter reigns, much of the history seems to be in the form of legendary explanations of proper names. … Even with respect to the Tarquinian family, it may be doubted whether the similarity of their name to that of the city of Tarquinii was not the origin of the story of Demaratus and the Etruscan origin. The circumstance that the two king Tarquins were both named Lucius, and that it was necessary to distinguish them by the epithets of Priscus and Superbus, raises a presumption that the names were real. {2661} Müller indeed regards the names of the two Tarquins as merely representing the influence exercised by the Etruscan city of Tarquinii in Rome at the periods known as their reigns. … The leading feature of the government during this period is that its chief was a king, who obtained his office by the election of the people, and the confirmation of the Senate, in the same manner in which consuls and other high magistrates were appointed after the abolition of royalty; but that, when once fully elected, he retained his power for life. In the mode of succession, the Roman differed from the early Greek kings, whose office was hereditary. The Alban kings, likewise, to whom the Roman kings traced their origin, are described as succeeding by inheritance and not by election. … The predominant belief of the Romans concerning their regal government was, that the power of the kings was limited by constitutional checks; that the chief institutions of the Republic, namely, the Senate and the Popular Assembly, existed in combination with the royalty, and were only suspended by the lawless despotism of the second Tarquin. Occasionally, however, we meet with the idea that the kings were absolute."

Sir G. C. Lewis, Inquiry into the Credibility of Early Roman History, chapter 11, sections 39-40 (volume 1).

"Of the kings of Rome we have no direct contemporary evidence; we know them only from tradition, and from the traces they left behind them in the Republican constitution which followed. But the 'method of survivals' has here been applied by a master-hand [Mommsen]; and we can be fairly sure, not only of the fact that monarchy actually existed at Rome, but even of some at least of its leading characteristics. Here we have kingship no longer denoting, as in Homer, a social position of chieftaincy which bears with it certain vaguely-conceived prerogatives, but a clearly defined magistracy within the fully realised State. The rights and duties of the Rex are indeed defined by no documents, and the spirit of the age still seems to be obedience and trust; but we also find the marks of a formal customary procedure, which is already hardening into constitutional practice, and will in time further harden into constitutional law. The monarchy has ceased to be hereditary, if it ever was so; and the method of appointment, though we are uncertain as to its exact nature, is beyond doubt regulated with precision, and expressed in technical terms."

W. W. Fowler, The City-State of the Greeks and Romans, pages 74-75.

"The analogy of other states, no less than the subsequent constitution of Rome, which always retained the marks of its first monarchical complexion, leaves us in no doubt that kings once reigned in Rome, and that by a determined uprising of the people they were expelled, leaving in the Roman mind an ineradicable hatred of the very name. We have to be content with these hard facts, extracted from those thrilling stories with which Livy adorns the reign and the expulsion of Tarquinius Superbus."

R. F. Horton, History of the Romans, chapter 2.

The names of the kings, with the dates assigned to them, are as follows: Romulus, B. C. 753-717; Numa Pompilius, B. C. 715-673; Tullus Hostilius, B. C. 673-642; Ancus Martius, B. C. 641-617; Lucius Tarquinius Priscus, B. C. 616-579; Servius Tullius, B. C. 578-535; Tarquinius Superbus, B. C. 534-510.

According to the legend of early Rome, Romulus attracted inhabitants to the city he had founded by establishing within its walls a sanctuary or refuge, for escaped slaves, outlaws and the like. But he could not in a fair way procure wives for these rough settlers, because marriage with them was disdained by the reputable people of neighboring cities. Therefore he arranged for an imposing celebration of games at Rome, in honor of the god Consus, and invited his neighbors, the Sabines, to witness them. These came unsuspectingly with their wives and daughters, and, when they were absorbed in the show, the Romans, at a given signal, rushed on them and carried off such women as they chose to make captive. A long and obstinate war ensued, which was ended by the interposition of the women concerned, who had become reconciled to their Roman husbands and satisfied to remain with them.

Livy, History, chapter 9.

"We cannot … agree with Niebuhr, who thinks he can discover some historical facts through this legendary mist. As he supposes, the inhabitants of the Palatine had not the right of intermarriage ('connubium') with their Sabine neighbours on the Capitoline and the Quirinal. This inferiority of the Palatine Romans to the Sabines of the Capitoline and Quirinal hills caused discontent and war. The right of intermarriage was obtained by force of arms, and this historical fact lies at the bottom of the tale of the rape of the Sabines. Such a method of changing legends into history is of very doubtful utility. It seems more natural to explain the legend from the customs at the Roman marriage ceremonies"—in which the pretence of forcible abduction was enacted.

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 1, chapter 2.

"With the reign of the fifth king, Tarquinius Priscus, a marked change takes place. The traditional accounts of the last three kings not only wear a more historical air than those of the first four, but they describe something like a transformation of the Roman city and state. Under the rule of these latter kings the separate settlements were for the first time enclosed with a rampart of colossal size and extent. The low grounds were drained, and a forum and circus elaborately laid out; on the Capitoline Mount a temple was erected, the massive foundations of which were an object of wonder even to Pliny. … The kings increase in power and surround themselves with new splendour. Abroad, Rome suddenly appears as a powerful state ruling far and wide over southern Etruria and Latium. These startling changes are, moreover, ascribed to kings of alien descent, who one and all ascend the throne in the teeth of established constitutional forms. Finally, with the expulsion of the last of them—the younger Tarquin—comes a sudden shrinkage of power. At the commencement of the republic Rome is once more a comparatively small state, with hostile and independent neighbours at her very doors. It is difficult to avoid the conviction that the true explanation of this phenomenon is to be found in the supposition that Rome during this period passed under the rule of powerful Etruscan lords. Who the people were whom the Romans knew as Etruscans and the Greeks as Tyrrhenians is a question, which, after centuries of discussion, still remains unanswered; nor in all probability will the answer be found until the lost key to their language has been discovered. That they were regarded by the Italic tribes, by Umbrians, Sabellians, and Latins, as intruders is certain. Entering Italy, as they probably did from the north or northeast, they seem to have first of all made themselves masters of the rich valley of the Po and of the Umbrians who dwelt there. {2662} Then crossing the Apennines, they overran Etruria proper as far south as the banks of the Tiber, here too reducing to subjection the Umbrian owners of the soil. In Etruria they made themselves dreaded, like the Northmen of a later time, by sea as well as by land. … We find the Etruscan power encircling Rome on all sides, and in Rome itself a tradition of the rule of princes of Etruscan origin. The Tarquinii come from South Etruria; their name can hardly be anything else than the Latin equivalent of the Etruscan Tarchon, and is therefore possibly a title (='lord' or 'prince') rather than a proper name. … That Etruria had, under the sway of Etruscan lords, forged ahead of the country south of the Tiber in wealth and civilisation is a fact which the evidence of remains has placed beyond doubt. It is therefore significant that the rule of the Tarquins in Rome is marked by an outward splendour which stands in strong contrast to the primitive simplicity of the native kings. … These Etruscan princes are represented, not only as having raised Rome for the time to a commanding position in Latium, and lavished upon the city itself the resources of Etruscan civilisation, but also the authors of important internal changes. They are represented as favouring new men at the expense of the old patrician families, and as reorganising the Roman army on a new footing, a policy natural enough in military princes of alien birth."

H. F. Pelham, Outlines of Roman History, book 1, chapter 3.

ALSO IN: _F. W. Newman, Regal Rome._

_T. H. Dyer, History of the Kings of Rome._

ROME: B. C. 510. Expulsion of Tarquin the Proud. The story from Livy.

Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, or Tarquin the Proud, son of Tarquinius Priscus and son-in-law of Servius Tullius, brought about the assassination of the latter, and mounted the throne. "Lucius Tarquin, having thus seized the kingdom (for he had not the consent either of the Senators or of the Commons to his deed), bare himself very haughtily, so that men called him Tarquin the Proud. First, lest some other, taking example by him, should deal with him as he had dealt with Tullius, he had about him a company of armed men for guards. And because he knew that none loved him, he would have them fear him. To this end he caused men to be accused before him. And when they were so accused, he judged them by himself, none sitting with him to see that right was done. Some he slew unjustly, and some he banished, and some he spoiled of their goods. And when the number of the Senators was greatly diminished by these means (for he laid his plots mostly against the Senators, as being rich men and the chief of the State), he would not choose any into their place, thinking that the people would lightly esteem them if there were but a few of them. Nor did he call them together to ask their counsel, but ruled according to his own pleasure, making peace and war, and binding treaties or unbinding, with none to gainsay him. Nevertheless, for a while he increased greatly in power and glory. He made alliance with Octavius Mamilius, prince of Tusculum, giving him his daughter in marriage; nor was there any man greater than Mamilius in all the cities of the Latins; and Suessa Pometia, that was a city of the Volsei, he took by force, and finding that the spoil was very rich (for there were in it forty talents of gold and silver), he built with the money a temple to Jupiter on the Capitol, very great and splendid, and worthy not only of his present kingdom but also of that great Empire that should be thereafter. Also he took the city of Gabii by fraud. … By such means did King Tarquin increase his power. Now there was at Rome in the days of Tarquin a noble youth, by name Lucius Junius, who was akin to the house of Tarquin, seeing that his mother was sister to the King. This man, seeing how the King sought to destroy all the chief men in the State (and, indeed, the brother of Lucius had been so slain), judged it well so to bear himself that there should be nothing in him which the King should either covet or desire. Wherefore he feigned foolishness, suffering all that he had to be made a prey; for which reason men gave him the name of Brutus, or the Foolish. Then he bided his time, waiting till the occasion should come when he might win freedom for the people." In a little time "there came to Brutus an occasion of showing what manner of man he was. Sextus, the King's son, did so grievous a wrong to Lucretia, that was the wife of Collatinus, that the woman could not endure to live, but slew herself with her own hand. But before she died she called to her her husband and her father and Brutus, and bade them avenge her upon the evil house of Tarquin. And when her father and her husband sat silent for grief and fear, Brutus drew the knife wherewith she slew herself from the wound, and held it before him dripping with blood, and cried aloud, 'By this blood I swear, calling the Gods to witness, that I will pursue with fire and sword and with all other means of destruction Tarquin the Proud, with his accursed wife and all his race; and that I will suffer no man hereafter to be king in this city of Rome.' And when he had ended he bade the others swear after the same form of words. This they did and, forgetting their grief, thought only how they might best avenge this great wrong that had been done. First they carried the body of Lucretia, all covered with blood, into the marketplace of Collatia (for these things happened at Collatia), and roused all the people that saw a thing so shameful and pitiful, till all that were of an age for war assembled themselves carrying arms. Some of them stayed behind to keep the gates of Collatia, that no one should carry tidings of the matter to the King, and the rest Brutus took with him with all the speed that he might to Rome. There also was stirred up a like commotion, Brutus calling the people together and telling them what a shameful wrong the young Tarquin had done. Also he spake to them of the labours with which the King wore them out in the building of temples and palaces and the like, so that they who had been in time past the conquerors of all the nations round about were now come to be but his hewers of wood and drawers of water. Also he set before them in what shameful sort King Tullius had been slain, and how his daughter had driven her chariot over the dead body of her father. With suchlike words he stirred up the people to great wrath, so that they passed a decree that there should be no more kings in Rome, and that Lucius Tarquin with his wife and his children should be banished. {2663} After this Brutus made haste to the camp and stirred up the army against the King. And in the meanwhile Queen Tullia fled from her palace, all that saw her cursing her as she went. As for King Tarquin, when he came to the city he found the gates shut against him; thereupon he returned and dwelt at Cære that is in the land of Etruria, and two of his sons with him; but Sextus going to Gabii, as to a city which he had made his own, was slain by the inhabitants. The King and his house being thus driven out, Brutus was made consul with one Collatinus for his colleague."

A. J. Church, Stories from Livy; chapter 5.

ALSO IN: B. G. Niebuhr, Lectures on the History of Rome, lectures 8-9 (volume 1).

T. H. Dyer, History of the Kings of Rome, chapter 10.

ROME: B. C. 509. The establishment of the Republic. The Valerian Laws.

"However much the history of the expulsion of the last Tarquinius, 'the proud,' may have been interwoven with anecdotes and spun out into a romance, it is not in its leading outlines to be called in question. … The royal power was by no means abolished, as is shown by the fact that, when a vacancy occurred, a 'temporary king' (interrex) was nominated as before. The one life-king was simply replaced by two year-kings, who called themselves generals (prætores), or judges (iudices), or merely colleagues (consules) [consules are those who 'leap or dance together.' Foot-note]. The collegiate principle, from which this last—and subsequently most current—name of the annual kings was derived, assumed in their case an altogether peculiar form. The supreme power was not entrusted to the two magistrates conjointly, but each consul possessed and exercised it for himself as fully and wholly as it had been possessed and exercised by the king; and, although a partition of functions doubtless took place from the first—the one consul for instance undertaking the command of the army, and the other the administration of justice—that partition was by no means binding, and each of the colleagues was legally at liberty to interfere at any time in the province of the other.

See CONSUL, ROMAN.

… This peculiarly Latin, if not peculiarly Roman, institution of co-ordinate supreme authorities … manifestly sprang out of the endeavour to retain the regal power in legally undiminished fulness. … A similar course was followed in reference to the termination of their tenure of office. … They ceased to be magistrates, not upon the expiry of the set term, but only upon their publicly and solemnly demitting their office: so that, in the event of their daring to disregard the term and to continue their magistracy beyond the year, their official acts were nevertheless valid, and in the earlier times they scarcely even incurred any other than a moral responsibility."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 1.

"No revolution can be undertaken and completed with success if the mass of the people is not led on by some superior intellect. At the dissolution of an existing legal authority the only authority remaining is personal and de facto, which in proportion to the danger of the position is more or less military and dictatorial. The Romans especially acknowledged the necessity, when circumstances required it, of submitting to the unlimited power of a dictator. Such a chief they found, at the time of the revolution, in Brutus. Collatinus also may, during a certain time, have stood in a similar manner at the head of the state, probably from less pure motives than Brutus, in consequence of which he succumbed to the movement which he in part may have evoked. After Brutus, Valerius Publicola was the recognised supreme head and the arbiter of events in Rome with dictatorial power, until his legislation made an end of the interregnum, and with all legal forms founded the true and genuine republic with two annual consuls. The dictatorship is found in the Latin cities as a state of transition between monarchy and the yearly prætorship; and we may conjecture that also in Rome the similar change in the constitution was effected in a similar way. In important historical crises the Romans always availed themselves of the absolute power of a dictator, as in Greece, with similar objects, Aesymnetae were chosen. … How long the dictatorial constitution lasted must remain undecided; for we must renounce the idea of a chronology of that time. It appears to me not impossible that the period between the expulsion of the kings and the Valerian laws, which is our authorities is represented as a year, may have embraced ten years, or much more."-

W. Ihne, Researches into the History of the Roman Constitution, page 61.

"The republic seems to have been first regularly established by the Valerian laws, of which, unfortunately, we can discover little more than half obliterated traces in the oldest traditions of the Romans. According to the story, P. Valerius was chosen as consul after the banishment of Tarquinius Collatinus, and remained alone in office after the death of his colleague, Brutus, without assembling the people for the election of a second consul. This proceeding excited a suspicion in the minds of the people, that he intended to take sole possession of the state, and to re-establish royal power. But these fears proved groundless. Valerius remained in office with the sole design of introducing a number of laws intended to establish the republic on a legal foundation, without the danger of any interference on the part of a colleague. The first of these Valerian laws threatened with the curse of the gods anyone who, without the consent of the people, should dare to assume the highest magistracy. … The second law of Valerius … prescribe that in criminal trials, where the life of a citizen was at stake, the sentence of the consul should be subject to an appeal to the general assembly of the people. This Valerian law of appeal was the Roman Habeas Corpus Act."

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

See, also, CONSUL, ROMAN; COMITIA CURIATA; COMITIA CENTURIATA; CENSORS; QUÆSTORS, ROMAN; SENATE, ROMAN.

ROME: B. C. 494-492. The first secession of the Plebs. Origin of the Tribunes of the Plebs, and the Ædiles. Original and acquired power of the Tribunes. The two Roman peoples and their antagonism.

"The struggle [of plebeians against patricians in early Rome] opens with the debt question. We must realize all along how the internal history is affected by the wars without. The debtors fall into their difficulties through serving in the field during the summer; for of course the army is a citizen army and the citizens are agriculturists. Two patrician families take the side of the poor, the Horatii and the Valerii. {2664} Manius Valerius Publicola, created dictator, promises the distressed farmers that, if they will follow him in his campaign against the Sabines, he will procure the relaxation of their burdens. They go and return victorious. But Appius Claudius (whose family had but recently migrated to Rome, a proud and overbearing Sabine stock) opposed the redemption of the dictator's promise. The victorious host, forming a seventh of the arm-bearing population, instantly marched out of the gate of the city, crossed the river Anio, and took up a station on the Sacred Mount [Mons Sacer]. They did not mean to go back again; they were weary of their haughty masters. … At last a peace is made—a formal peace concluded by the fetiales: they will come back if they may have magistrates of their own. This is the origin of the tribunes of the plebs [B. C. 492]. … The plebs who marched back that day from the Sacred Mount had done a deed which was to have a wonderful issue in the history of the world; they had dropped a seed into the soil which would one day spring up into the imperial government of the Cæsars. The 'tribunicia potestas,' with which they were clothing their new magistrates, was to become a more important element in the claims of the emperors than the purple robe of the consuls."

R. F. Horton, History of the Romans, chapter 3.

"The tribunes of the people were so essentially different from all the other magistrates that, strictly speaking, they could hardly be called magistrates at all. They were originally nothing but the official counsel of the plebs—but counsel who possessed a veto on the execution of any command or any sentence of the patrician authorities. The tribune of the people had no military force at his disposal with which to inforce his veto. … There is no more striking proof of the high respect for law which was inherent in the Roman people, than that it was possible for such a magistracy to exercise functions specially directed against the governing class. … To strengthen an official authority which was so much wanting in physical strength, the Romans availed themselves of the terrors of religion. … The tribunes were accordingly placed under the special protection of the Deity. They were declared to be consecrated and inviolable ('sacrosancti'), and whoever attacked them, or hindered them in the exercise of their functions, fell a victim to the avenging Deity, and might be killed by anyone without fear of punishment."

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 2, and book 6, chapter 8.

"The tribune had no political authority. Not being a magistrate, he could not convoke the curies or the centuries [see COMITIA CURIATA and COMITIA CENTURIATA]. He could make no proposition in the senate; it was not supposed, in the beginning, that he could appear there. He had nothing in common with the real city—that is to say, with the patrician city, where men did not recognize any authority of his. He was not the tribune of the people; he was the tribune of the plebs. There were then, as previously, two societies in Rome—the city and the plebs; the one strongly organized, having laws, magistrates, and a senate; the other a multitude, which remained without rights and laws, but which found in its inviolable tribunes protectors and judges. In succeeding years we can see how the tribunes took courage, and what unexpected powers they assumed. They had no authority to convoke the people, but they convoked them. Nothing called them to the senate; they sat at first at the door of the chamber; later they sat within. They had no power to judge the patricians; they judged them and condemned them. This was the result of the inviolability attached to them as sacrosancti. Every other power gave way before them. The patricians were disarmed the day they had pronounced, with solemn rites, that whoever touched a tribune should be impure. The law said, 'Nothing shall be done against a tribune.' If, then, this tribune convoked the plebs, the plebs assembled, and no one could dissolve this assembly, which the presence of the tribune placed beyond the power of the patricians and the laws. If the tribune entered the senate, no one could compel him to retire. If he seized a consul, no one could take the consul from his hand. Nothing could resist the boldness of a tribune. Against a tribune no one had any power, except another tribune. As soon as the plebs thus had their chiefs, they did not wait long before they had deliberative assemblies. These did not in any manner resemble those of the patricians. The plebs, in their comitia, were distributed into tribes; the domicile, not religion or wealth, regulated the place of each one. The assembly did not commence with a sacrifice; religion did not appear there. They knew nothing of presages, and the voice of an augur, or a pontiff, could not compel men to separate. It was really the comitia of the plebs, and they had nothing of the old rules, or of the religion of the patricians. True, these assemblies did not at first occupy themselves with the general interests of the city; they named no magistrates, and passed no laws. They deliberated only on the interests of their own order, named the plebeian chiefs, and carried plebiscita. There was at Rome, for a long time, a double series of decrees—senatusconsulta for the patricians, plebiscita for the plebs. The plebs did not obey the senatusconsulta, nor the patricians the plebiscita. There were two peoples at Rome. These two peoples, always in presence of each other, and living within the same walls, still had almost nothing in common. A plebeian could not be consul of the city, nor a patrician tribune of the plebs. The plebeian dill not enter the assembly by curies, nor the patrician the assembly of the tribes. They were two peoples that did not even understand each other, not having—so to speak—common ideas. … The patricians persisted in keeping the plebs without the body politic, and the plebs established institutions of their own. The duality of the Roman population became from day to day more manifest. And yet there was something which formed a tie between these two peoples: this was war. The patricians were careful not to deprive themselves of soldiers. They had left to the plebeians the title of citizens, if only to incorporate them into the legions. They had taken care, too, that the inviolability of the tribunes should not extend outside of Rome, and for this purpose had decided that a tribune should never go out of the city. In the army, therefore, the plebs were under control; there was no longer a double power; in presence of the enemy Rome became one."

N. D. Fustel de Coulanges, The Ancient City, book 4, chapter 7.

{2665}

It is supposed that the tribunes were originally two in number; but later there were five, and, finally, ten. The law which created their office was "deposited in a temple, under the charge of two plebeian magistrates specially appointed for the purpose and called Aediles or 'housemasters.' These aediles were attached to the tribunes as assistants, and their jurisdiction chiefly concerned such minor cases as were settled by fines."

T. Mommsen, History of the Roman Republic (abridged by Bryant and Hendy), chapter 7.

"Besides the tribunes, who stood over against the consuls, two plebeian ædiles were appointed, who might balance the patrician quæstors. Their name seems borrowed from the temple (Ædes Cereris) which is now built on the cattle market between the Palatine and the river to form a religious centre for the plebeian interest, as the ancient temple of Saturn was already a centre for the patrician interest. The goddess of bread is to preside over the growth of the democracy. The duty of ædiles is, in the first instance, to keep the public buildings in repair; but they acquire a position not unlike that of police-officers."

R. F. Horton, History of the Romans, chapter 3.

The office of the curule ædiles (two in number, who were elected in "comitia tributa") was instituted in 366 B. C. These were patricians at first; but in 304 B. C. the office was thrown open in alternate years to the plebeians, and in 91 B. C. all restrictions were removed. The curule ædiles had certain judicial functions, and formed with the plebeian ædiles a board of police and market administration, having oversight also of the religious games.

_R. F. Horton, History of the Romans, Appendix A._

ALSO IN: Sir G. C. Lewis, Credibility of Early Roman History, chapter 12, part 1.

B. G. Niebuhr, Lectures on the History of Rome, lecture 16.

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 2 (volume 1).

ROME: B. C. 493. League with the Latins.

See ROME: B. C. 339-338.

ROME: B. C. 489-450. Volscian Wars.

The wars of the Romans with the neighboring Volscians stretched over a period of some forty years (B. C. 489-450) and ended in the disappearance of the latter from history. The legend of Coriolanus (Caius Marcius, on whom the added name was bestowed because of his valiant capture of the Volscian town of Corioli) is connected with these wars; but modern critics have stripped it of all historic credit and left it only a beautiful romance.

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 4 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: _A. J. Church, Stories from Livy, chapter 7. _

ROME: B. C. 472-471.- The Publilian Law of Volero. Exclusion of Patricians from the Comitia Tributa.

"Volero Publilius was chosen one of the Tribunes for … [B. C. 472]; and he straightway proposed a law, by which it was provided that the Tribunes and Ædiles of the plebs should be elected by the plebeians themselves at the Assembly of the Tribes in the Forum, not at the Assembly of the Centuries in the Field of Mars. This is usually called the Publilian Law of Volero. For a whole year the patricians succeeded in putting off the law. But the plebeians were determined to have it."

H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 8 (volume 1).

"The immediate consequence of the tribuneship of the people was the organisation of the assembly of tribes, the 'comitia tributa,' whereby they lost their former character as factional or party meetings and were raised to the·dignity and functions of assemblies of the Roman people. … The circumstances which, in 471 B. C., led to the passing of the Publilian law, seem to indicate that even at that time the attempt was made by the patricians to change the original character of the tribuneship of the people, and to open it to the patrician class. The patricians intruded themselves in the assembly of the plebeians, surely not for the purpose of making a disturbance as it is represented, but to enforce a contested right, by which they claimed to take part in the comitia of tribes. … This question was decided by the Publilian law, which excluded the patricians from the comitia tributa and specified the privileges of these comitia, now admitted to be purely plebeian. … These were the right of meeting together unmolested in separate purely plebeian comitia, the right of freely and independently electing their representatives, the right of discussing and settling their own affairs, and in certain matters of passing resolutions [plebiscita] which affected the whole community. These resolutions were, of course, not binding on the state, they had more the character of petitions than enactments, but still they were the formal expression of the will of a great majority of the Roman people, and as such they could not easily be set aside or ignored by the patrician government."

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 8, and book 6, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: B. G. Niebuhr, Lectures on History of Rome, lecture 20.

ROME: B. C. 466-463. The Plague.

In the war of the Romans with the Volscians, the former were so hard pressed that "it became necessary to receive men and cattle within the walls or Rome, just as at Athens in the Peloponnesian war; and this crowding together of men and beasts produced a plague [B. C. 466-403]. … It is probable that the great pestilence which, thirty years later, broke out in Greece and Carthage, began in Italy as early as that time. The rate of mortality was fearful; it was a real pestilence, and not a mere fever. … Both consuls fell victims to the disease, two of the four augurs, the curio maximus, the fourth part of the senators, and an immense number of citizens of all classes."

B. G. Niebuhr, Lectures on the History of Rome, lecture 21.

ALSO IN: T. Arnold, History of Rome, chapter 11.

ROME: B. C. 458. Conquest of the Æqui.

"Alternating with the raids [of the Romans] against the Volsci are the almost yearly campaigns with the Æqui, who would pour down their valleys and occupy Mount Algidus, threatening Tusculum and the Latin Way which led to Rome. It was on one of these occasions, when the republic too was engaged with Sabines to the north, and Volscians to the south, that the Consul Minucius [B. C. 458] found himself hemmed in on the mountainside by the Æqui. Very beautiful and very characteristic is the legend which veils the issue of the danger. L. Quinctius Cincinnatus, ruined by a fine imposed upon his son, is tilling his little farm across the Tiber, when the messengers of the Senate come to announce that he is made dictator. With great simplicity he leaves his plough, conquers the Æqui, and returns to his furrows again."

R. F. Horton. History of the Romans, chapter 4.

ALSO IN: A. J. Church, Stories from Livy, chapter 9.

{2666}

ROME: B. C. 456. The Icilian Law. The early process of legislation illustrated. Persuasiveness of Plebeian Petitions.

"The process of legislation in early times has been preserved to us in a single instance in which Dionysius has followed the account derived by him from an ancient document. The case is that of the Lex Icilia de Aventino publicando (B. C. 456), an interlude in the long struggle over the Terentilian law.

See ROME: B. C. 451-449.

This Lex Icilia was preserved, as Dionysius tells us, on a brazen column in the temple of Diana on the Aventine. It seems unlikely that the original tablet in such a situation should have survived the burning of the city by the Gauls. Yet a record so important to the plebs would doubtless be at once restored, and the restoration would show at least the belief prevalent at this very early period (B. C. 389) as to the proper procedure in case of such a law. 'Icilius,' says Dionysius (X. 31), 'approached the consuls then in office and the senate, and requested them to pass the preliminary decree for the law that he proposed, and to bring it before the people.' By threatening to arrest the consuls he compelled them to assemble the senate, and Icilius addressed the senate on behalf of his bill. Finally the senate consented … (Dionys. X. 32). Then, after auspices and sacrifices, 'the law was passed by the comitia centuriata, which were convened by the consuls.' … Now here we have an order of proceeding under which the plebs have a practical initiative in legislation, and in which, nevertheless, each of the powers of the state acts in a perfectly natural and constitutional manner. … The formal legislative power lies solely with the populus Romanus. The vote of the corporation of the plebs is not then in early times strictly a legislative process at all. It is merely a strong and formal petition; an appeal to the sovereign assembly to grant their request. But this sovereign assembly can only be convened and the question put to it by a consul. If the consuls are unfavourable to the bill, they can refuse to put it to the vote at all. In any case, unless, like Sp. Cassius, they were themselves revolutionists, they would not think of doing so save on the recommendation of their authorised advisers. … The senate is assembled and freely dis·cusses the law. An adverse vote justifies the consuls in their resistance. Then follow tedious manœuvres. The senate treat with members of the college of tribunes to procure their veto; they urge the necessity of a military expedition, or, as a last resource, advise the appointment of a dictator. Such is the general picture we get from Livy's story. If by these means they can tide over the tribune's year of office, the whole process has to be gone through again. The senate have the chance of a lucky accident in getting one of the new tribunes subservient to them; or sometimes (as in the case of the proposal to remove to Veii) they may persuade the plebs itself to throw out the tribunician rogatio when again introduced (Livy, v. 30). On the other hand the tribunes may bring to bear their reserved power of impeding all public business; and the ultima ratio lies with the plebeians, who have the power of secession in their hands. In practice, however, the senate is nearly always wise enough to yield before the plebs is driven to play this its last card. Their yielding is expressed by their backing the petition of the plebs and recommending the consuls to put the question of its acceptance to the populus. With this recommendation on the part of the senate the struggle is generally at an end. It is still in the strict right of the consuls to refuse to put the question to the comitia. Livy (iii. 19) gives us one instance in the matter of the Terentilian law, when the senate is disposed to yield, and the consul 'non in plebe coercendâ quam senatu castigando vehementior fuit.' But a consul so insisting on his right would incur enormous personal responsibility, and expose himself, unsheltered by public opinion, to the vengeance of the plebs when he went out of office. When the consul too has yielded, and the question is actually put to the vote of the sovereign (generally in its comitia centuriata), the controversy has been long ago thoroughly threshed out. Though it is only at this stage that legislation in the strict sense of the word commences, yet no instance is recorded of a refusal on the part of the sovereign people to assent to the petition of the plebs backed by the recommendation of the senate."

_J. L. Strachan-Davidson, Plebeian Privilege at Rome (English Historical Review, April, 1886)._

On the bearings of this proceeding on the subsequently adopted Valerio-Horatian, Publilian, and Hortensian laws.

See ROME: B. C. 286.

ROME: B. C. 451-449. The Terentilian Law. The Decemvirs and the Twelve Tables.

Not long after the establishment of the tribuneship, "the plebeians felt the necessity of putting an end to the exclusive possession of the laws which the patricians enjoyed, and to make them the common property of the whole nation. This could only be done by writing them down and making them public. A proposal was accordingly made in the assembly of the tribes by the tribune C. Terentilius Arsa (462 B. C.) to appoint a commission for the purpose of committing to writing the whole of the laws. … It is not wonderful that the patricians opposed with all their strength a measure which would wrest a most powerful weapon out of their hands. … The contest for the passing of the bill of Terentilius lasted, according to tradition, not less than ten years, and all means of open and secret opposition and of partial concession were made use of to elude the claims of the popular party. … After a ten years' struggle it [the motion for a commission] was passed into law. It proposed that a commission of ten men, being partly patricians and partly plebeians, should be appointed, for the purpose of arranging the existing law into a code. At the same time the consular constitution was to be suspended, and the ten men to be intrusted with the government and administration of the commonwealth during the time that they acted as legislators. By the same law the plebeian magistracy of the tribunes of the people ceased likewise, and the ten men became a body of magistrates intrusted with unlimited authority. … The patricians did not act entirely in good faith. … They carried the election of ten patricians. … Having, however, obtained this advantage over the credulity of their opponents, the patricians made no attempt to use it insolently as a party victory. The decemvirs proceeded with wisdom and moderation. Their administration, as well as their legislation, met with universal approval. They published on ten tables the greater part of the Roman law, and after these laws had met with the approbation of the people, they were declared by a decision of the people to be binding. Thus the first year of the decemvirate passed, and so far the traditional story is simple and intelligible." {2667} The part of the tradition which follows is largely rejected by modern critical historians. It relates that when decemvirs were chosen for another year, to complete their work, Appius Claudius brought about the election, with himself, of men whom he could control, and then established a reign of terror which surpassed the worst tyranny of the kings, refusing to abdicate when the year expired. The tragic story of Virginia connects itself with this terrible oppression, and with the legend of its downfall. In the end, the Roman people delivered themselves, and secured the permanent authority of the code of laws, which had been enlarged from ten to twelve Tables.

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 9 and 10.

"The Twelve Tables were considered as the foundation of all law, and Cicero always mentions them with the utmost reverence. But only fragments remain."

H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 11.

"The most celebrated system of jurisprudence known to the world begins, as it ends, with a code. From the commencement to the close of its history, the expositors of Roman Law consistently employed language which implied that the body of their system rested on the Twelve Decemviral [Tables, and therefore on a basis of written law. Except in one particular, no institutions anterior to the Twelve Tables were recognised at Rome. The theoretical descent of Roman jurisprudence from a code, the theoretical ascription of English law to immemorial unwritten tradition, were the chief reasons why the development of their system differed from the development of ours. Neither theory corresponded exactly with the facts, but each produced consequences of the utmost importance. … The ancient Roman code belongs to a class of which almost every civilised nation in the world can show a sample, and which, so far as the Roman and Hellenic worlds were concerned, were largely diffused over them at epochs not widely distant from one another. They appeared under exceedingly similar circumstances, and were produced, to our knowledge, by very similar causes. … In Greece, in Italy, on the Hellenised sea-board of Western Asia, these codes all made their appearance at periods much the same everywhere, not, I mean, at periods identical in point of time, but similar in point of the relative progress of each community. Everywhere, in the countries I have named, laws engraven on tablets and published to the people take the place of usages deposited with the recollection of a privileged oligarchy. … The ancient codes were doubtless originally suggested by the discovery and diffusion of the art of writing. It is true that the aristocracies seem to have abused their monopoly of legal knowledge; and at all events their exclusive possession of the law was a formidable impediment to the success of those popular movements which began to be universal in the western world. But, though democratic sentiment may have added to their popularity, the codes were certainly in the main a direct result of the invention of writing. Inscribed tablets were seen to be a better depositary of law, and a better security for its accurate preservation, than the memory of a number of persons however strengthened by habitual exercise. … Among the chief advantages which the Twelve Tables and similar codes conferred on the societies which obtained them, was the protection which they afforded against the frauds of the privileged oligarchy and also against the spontaneous depravation and debasement of the national institutions. The Roman Code was merely an enunciation in words of the existing customs of the Roman people. Relatively to the progress of the Romans in civilization, it was a remarkably early code, and it was published at a time when Roman society had barely emerged from that intellectual condition in which civil obligation and religious duty are inevitably confounded."

H. S. Maine, Ancient Law, chapter 1.

ROME: B. C. 449. The Valerio-Horatian Laws.

On the overthrow of the tyranny of the Decemvirs, at Rome, B. C. 449, L. Valerius Potitus and M. Horatius Barbatus, being elected consuls, brought about the passage of certain laws, known as the Valerio-Horatian Laws. These renewed an old law (the Valerian Law) which gave to every Roman citizen an appeal from the supreme magistrate to the people, and they also made the plebiscita, or resolutions of the assembly of the tribes, authoritative laws, binding on the whole body politic.

H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 10.

See a discussion of the importance of the last mentioned of these laws, in its relations to the subsequent Publilian and Hortensian laws.

See, ROME: B. C. 286.

ROME: B. C. 445-400. The Canuleian Law. Creation of the Consular Tribunes. Progress of the Plebs toward Political Equality.

"The year 449 had not taken from the patricians all their privileges. Rome has still two classes, but only one people, and the chiefs of the plebs, sitting in the senate, are meditating, after the struggle to obtain civil equality, to commence another to gain political equality. … Two things maintained the insulting distinction between the two orders: the prohibition of marriage between patricians and plebeians, and the tenure of all the magisterial officers by those who formed since the origin of Rome the sovereign people of the 'patres.' In 445 B. C. the tribune Canuleius demanded the abolition of the prohibition relative to marriages, and his colleagues, a share in the consulate. This was a demand for political equality." The Canuleian law legalizing marriages between patricians and plebeians was conceded, but not until a third "secession" of the plebeians had taken place. The plebeian demand for a share in the consulate was pacified for the time by a constitutional change which formed out of the consulate three offices: "the quæstorship, the censorship and the consular tribunate. The two former are exclusively patrician. The military [or consular] tribunes, in reality proconsuls confined, with one exception, to the command of the legions, could now be chosen without distinction, from the two orders. But the law, in not requiring that every year a fixed number of them be plebeians, allowed them to be all patricians; and they remained so for nearly fifty years. In spite of such skilful precautions, the senate did not give up the consulate. It held in reserve and pure from all taint the patrician magistracy, hoping for better days. … The constitution of 444 B. C. authorized the nomination of plebeians to the consular tribunate; down to 400 B. C. none obtained it; and during the seventy-eight years that this office continued, the senate twenty-four times nominated consuls, that is to say, it attempted, and succeeded, one year in three, in re-establishing the ancient form of government. {2668} These perpetual oscillations encouraged the ambitious hopes of a rich knight, Spurius Mælius (439 B. C.). He thought that the Romans would willingly resign into his hands their unquiet liberty, and during a famine he gave very liberally to the poor. The senate became alarmed at this alms-giving which was not at all in accordance with the manners of that time, and raised to the dictatorship Cincinnatus, who, on taking office, prayed the gods not to grant that his old age should prove a cause of hurt or damage to the republic. Summoned before the tribunal of the dictator, Mælius refused to appear, and sought protection against the lictors amongst the crowd which filled the Forum. But the master of the horse, Serv. Ahala, managed to reach him, and ran him through with his sword. In spite of the indignation of the people, Cincinnatus sanctioned the act of his lieutenant, caused the house of the traitor to be demolished, and the 'præfectus annonæ,' Minucius Augurinus, sold, for an 'as' per 'modius,' the corn amassed by Mælius. Such is the story of the partisan of the nobles [Livy]; but at that epoch to have dreamt of reestablishing royalty would have been a foolish dream in which Spurius could not have indulged. Without doubt he had wished to obtain, by popular favour, the military tribunate, and in order to intimidate the plebeian candidates, the patricians overthrew him by imputing to him the accusation which Livy complacently details by the mouth of Cincinnatus, of having aimed at royalty. The crowd always can be cajoled by words, and the senate had the art of concentrating on this word 'royalty' all the phases of popular hatred. The move succeeded; during the eleven years following the people nine times allowed consuls to be nominated. There was, however, in 433 B. C. a plebeian dictator, Mamercus Æmilius, who reduced the tenure of censorship to 18 months. These nine consulships gave such confidence to the nobles that the senate itself had to suffer from the proud want of discipline shown by the consuls of the year 428 B. C. Though conquered by the Æquians, they refused to nominate a dictator. To overcome their resistance the senate had recourse to the tribunes of the people, who threatened to drag the consuls to prison. To see the tribunitian authority protecting the majesty of the senate was quite a new phenomenon. From this day the reputation of the tribunate equalled its power, and few years passed without the plebeians obtaining some new advantage. Three years earlier the tribunes, jealous of seeing the votes always given to the nobles, had proscribed the white robes, which marked out from a distance, to all eyes, the patrician candidate: This was the first law against undue canvassing. In 430 a law put an end to arbitrary valuations of penalties payable in kind. In 427 the tribunes, by opposing the levies, obliged the senate to carry to the comitia centuriata the question of the war against Veii. In 423 they revived the agrarian law, and demanded that the tithe should be more punctually paid in the future by the occupiers of domain land, and applied to the pay of the troops. They miscarried this time: but in 421 it seemed necessary to raise the number of quæstors from two to four; the people consented to it only on the condition that the quæstorship be accessible to the plebeians. Three years later 3,000 acres of the lands of Labicum were distributed to fifteen hundred plebeian families. It was very little: so the people laid claim in 414 to the division of the lands of Bola, taken from the Æquians. A military tribune, Postumius, being violently opposed to it, was slain in an outbreak of the soldiery. This crime, unheard of in the history of Roman armies, did harm to the popular cause; there was no distribution of lands, and for five years the senate was able to nominate the consuls. The patrician reaction produced another against it which ended in the thorough execution of the constitution of the year 444. An Icilius in 412, a Mænius in 410 B. C. took up again the agrarian law, and opposed the levy. The year following three of the Icilian family were named as tribunes. It was a menace to the other order. The patricians understood it, and in 410 three plebeians obtained the quæstorship. In 405 pay was established for the troops, and the rich undertook to pay the larger portion of it. Finally, in 400, four military tribunes out of six were plebeians. The chiefs of the people thus obtained the public offices and even places in the senate, and the poor obtained an indemnity which supported their families while they served with the colours. All ambitions, all desires, are at present satisfied. Calm and union returned to Rome; we can see it in the vigour of the attacks on external foes."

V. Duruy, History of Rome, volume 1, pages 231-239.

ROME: B. C. 406-396. The Veientine wars. Proposed removal to Veii.

"Veii lay about ten miles from Rome, between two small streams which meet a little below the city and run down into the Tiber, falling into it nearly opposite to Castel Giubileo, the ancient Fidenæ. Insignificant in point of size, these little streams, however, like those of the Campagna generally, are edged by precipitous rocky cliffs, and thus are capable of affording a natural defence to a town built on the table-land above and between them. The space enclosed by the walls of Veii was equal to the extent of Rome itself, so long as the walls of Servius Tullius were the boundary of the city. … In the magnificence of its public and private buildings Veii is said to have been preferred by the Roman commons to Rome: and we know enough of the great works of the Etruscans to render this not impossible."

T. Arnold, History of Rome, chapter 12 (volume 1).

"Rome and Veii, equals in strength and size, had engaged in periodical conflicts from time immemorial. … But the time had come for the final struggle with Veii. … How the siege lasted for ten years [B. C. 406-396]; how, at the bidding of a captured Tuscan seer, the Alban Lake was drained (and is not the tunnel which drained it visible to-day?); how Camillus, the dictator, by a tunnel underground took the city, and fore·stalled the sacrifice; how Juno came from Veii, and took up her abode upon the Aventine; how Camillus triumphed; and how the nemesis fell upon him, and he was banished—all this and more is told by Livy in his matchless way. It is an epic, and a beautiful epic."

R. F. Horton, History of the Romans, chapter 4.

{2669}

At the time of the conquest of Veii, there was a proposal that half the inhabitants of Rome should remove to the empty city, and found a new state. It was defeated with difficulty. A little later, when the Gauls had destroyed Rome, its citizens, having found Veii a strong and comfortable place of refuge, were nearly persuaded to remain there and not rebuild their former home. Thus narrowly was the "Eternal City" saved to history.

H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, book 2, chapters 13 and 15.

ROME: B. C. 390-347. Invasions by the Gauls. Destruction of the city.

"Before the time we are now speaking of, there had been a great movement in these Celtic nations [of Gael and Cymri]. Two great swarms went out from Gaul. Of these, one crossed the Alps into Italy; the other, moving eastward, in the course of time penetrated into Greece. … It is supposed that the Gael who dwelt in the eastern parts of Gaul, being oppressed by Cymric tribes of the west and north, went forth to seck new homes in distant lands. … At all events, it is certain that large bodies of Celts passed over the Alps before and after this time, and having once tasted the wines and eaten the fruits of Italy, were in no hurry to return from that fair land into their own less hospitable regions. We read of one swarm after another pressing into the land of promise; parties of Lingones, whose fathers lived about Langres in Champagne; Boians, whose name is traced in French Bourbon and Italian Bologna; Senones, whose old country was about Sens, and who have left record of themselves in the name of Senigaglia (Sena Gallica) on the coast of the Adriatic. … They overran the rich plains of Northern Italy, and so occupied the territory which lies between the Alps, the Apennines and the Adriatic [except Liguria] that the Romans called this territory Gallia Cisalpina, or Hither Gaul. The northern Etruscans gave way before these fierce barbarians, and their name is heard of no more in those parts. Thence the Gauls crossed the Apennines into southern Etruria, and while they were ravaging that country they first came in contact with the sons of Rome. The common date for this event is 300 B. C. … The tribe which took this course were of the Senones, as an authors say, and therefore we may suppose they were Gaelic; but it has been thought they were mixed with Cymri, since the name of their king or chief was Brennus, and Brenhin is Cymric for a king." The Romans met the invaders on the banks of the Alia, a little stream from the Sabine Hills which flows into the Tiber, and were terribly defeated there. The Gauls entered Rome and found, as the ancient story is, only a few venerable senators, sitting in their chairs and robes of state, whom they slew, because one of the senators resented the stroking of his beard by an insolent barbarian. The remaining inhabitants had withdrawn into the Capitol, or taken refuge at Veii and Cære. After pillaging and burning the city, the Gauls laid siege to the Capitol, and strove desperately for seven months to overcome its defenders by arms or famine. In the end they retreated, without success, but whether bribed, or driven, or weakened by sickness, is matter of uncertainty. The Romans cherished many legends connected with the siege of the Capitol,—like that, for example, of the sentinel and the sacred geese. "Thirty years after the first irruption (361 B. C.), we hear that another host of Senonian Gauls burst into Latium from the north, and, in alliance with the people of Tibur, ravaged the lands of Rome, Latium and Campania. For four years they continued their ravages, and then we hear of them no more. A third irruption followed, ten years later [B. C. 347], of still more formidable character. At that time, the Gauls formed a stationary camp on the Alban Hills and kept Rome in perpetual terror. … After some months they poured southwards, and disappear from history."

H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 14 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 4.

A. J. Church, Stories from Livy, chapters 13-14.

ROME: B. C. 376-367. The Licinian Laws.

"C. Licinius Stolo and L. Sextius … being Tribunes of the Plebs together in the year 376 B. C. promulgated the three bills which have ever since borne the name of the Licinian Rogations. These were:

I. That of all debts on which interest had been paid, the sum of the interest paid should be deducted from the principal, and the remainder paid off in three successive years.

II. That no citizen should hold more than 500 jugera (nearly 320 acres) of the Public Land, nor should feed on the public pastures more than 100 head of larger cattle and 500 of smaller, under penalty of a heavy fine.

III. That henceforth Consuls, not Consular Tribunes, should always be elected, and that one of the two Consuls must be a Plebeian."

The patricians made a desperate resistance to the adoption of these proposed enactments for ten years, during most of which long period the operations of government were nearly paralyzed by the obstinate tribunes, who inflexibly employed their formidable power of veto to compel submission to the popular demand. In the end they prevailed, and the Licinian rogations became Laws.

H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 15 (volume 1).

"Licinius evidently designed reuniting the divided members of the plebeian body. Not one of them, whether rich or poor, but seems called back by these bills to stand with his own order from that time on. If this supposition was true, then Licinius was the greatest leader whom the plebeians ever had up to the time of Cæsar. But from the first he was disappointed. The plebeians who most wanted relief cared so little for having the consulship opened to the richer men of their estate that they would readily have dropped the bill concerning it, lest a demand should endanger their own desires. In the same temper the more eminent men of the order, themselves among the creditors of the poor and the tenants of the domain, would have quashed the proceedings of the tribunes respecting the discharge of debt and the distribution of land, so that they carried the third bill only, which would make them consuls without disturbing their possessions. While the plebeians continued severed from one another, the patricians drew together in resistance to the bills. Licinius stood forth demanding, at once, all that it had cost his predecessors their utmost energy to demand, singly and at long intervals, from the patricians. … The very comprehensiveness of his measures proved the safeguard of Licinius. Had he preferred but one of these demands, he would have been unhesitatingly opposed by the great majority of the patricians. On the other hand he would have had comparatively doubtful support from the plebs." In the end, after a struggle of ten years duration, Licinius and Sextius carried their three bills, together with a fourth, brought forward later, which opened to the plebeians the office of the duumvirs, who consulted the Sibyline books. {2670} "It takes all the subsequent history of Rome to measure the consequences of the Revolution achieved by Licinius and Sextius; but the immediate working of their laws could have been nothing but a disappointment to their originators and upholders. … For some ten years the law regarding the consulship was observed, after which it was occasionally violated, but can still be called a success. The laws of relief, as may be supposed of all such sumptuary enactments, were violated from the first. No general recovery of the public land from those occupying more than five hundred jugera ever took place. Consequently there was no general division of land among the lack-land class. Conflicting claims and jealousy on the part of the poor must have done much to embarrass and prevent the execution of the law. No system of land survey to distinguish between 'ager publicus' and 'ager privatus' existed. Licinius Stolo himself was afterwards convicted of violating his own law. The law respecting debts met with much the same obstacles. The causes of embarrassment and poverty being much the same and undisturbed, soon reproduced the effects which no reduction of interest or installment of principal could effectually remove. … These laws, then, had little or no effect upon the domain question or the re-distribution of land. They did not fulfil the evident expectation of their author in uniting the plebeians into one political body. This was impossible. What they did do was to break up and practically abolish the patriciate. Henceforth were the Roman people divided into rich and poor on]y."

_A. Stephenson, Public Lands and Agrarian Laws of the Roman Republic (Johns Hopkins University Studies, 9th series, numbers 7-8)._

ALSO IN: T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 3 (volume 1).

S. Eliot, The Liberty of Rome, book 2, chapter 7 (volume 1).

ROME: B. C. 366. Institution of the Prætorship.

"By the establishment of the prætorship (366 B. C.) the office of chief judge was separated as a distinct magistracy from the consulship. … The prætor was always looked upon as the colleague of the consuls. He was elected in the same manner as the consuls by centuriate comitia, and, moreover, under the same auspices. He was furnished with the imperium, had lictors and fasces. He represented the consuls in town by assembling the senate, conducting its proceedings, executing its decrees. … Up to the time of the first Punic war one prætor only was annually elected. Then a second was added to conduct the jurisdiction between citizens and foreigners. A distinction was now made between the city prætor (prætor urbanus), who was always looked upon as having a higher dignity, and the foreign prætor (prætor peregrinus). On the final establishment of the two provinces of Sicily and Sardinia, probably 227 B. C., two new prætors were appointed to superintend the regular government of those provinces, and still later on two more were added for the two provinces of Spain. The number of annual prætors now amounted to six, and so it remained until the legislation of Sulla."

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 6, chapter 5.

See, also, CONSUL, ROMAN.

ROME: B. C. 343-290. The Samnite Wars.

When the Romans had made themselves dominant in middle Italy, and the Samnites [see SAMNITES] in southern Italy, the question which of the two peoples should be masters of the peninsula at large was sure to demand settlement. About the middle of the fourth century, B. C., it began to urge the two rivals into collision, and the next two generations of Romans were busied chiefly with Samnite Wars, of which they fought three, with brief intervals to divide them, and at the end of which the Samnite name had been practically erased from history. The first hostilities grew out of a quarrel between the Samnites of the mountains and their degenerate countrymen of Capua and Campania. The latter sought help from the Romans, and, according to the Romans, surrendered their city to them in order to secure it; but this is obviously untrue. The First Samnite War, which followed this (B. C. 343-341), had no definite result, and seems to have been brought to an end rather abruptly by a mutiny in the Roman army and by trouble between Rome and her Latin allies. According to the Roman annals there were three great battles fought in this war, one on Mount Gaurus, and two elsewhere; but Mommsen and other historians entirely distrust the historic details as handed down. The Second or Great Samnite War occurred after an interval of fifteen years, during which time the Romans had conquered all Latium, reducing their Latin kinsmen from confederates to subjects. That accomplished, the Romans were quite ready to measure swords again with their more important rivals in the south. The long, desperate and doubtful war which ensued was of twenty-two years duration (B. C. 326-304). In the first years of this war victory was with the Romans and the Samnites sued for peace; but the terms offered were too hard fur them and they fought on. Then Fortune smiled on them and gave them an opportunity to inflict on their haughty enemy one of the greatest humiliations that Rome in all her history ever suffered. The entire Roman army, commanded by the two consuls of the year, was caught in a mountain defile (B. C. 321), at a place called the Caudine Forks, and compelled to surrender to the Samnite genera], C. Pontius. The consuls and other officers of the Romans signed a treaty of peace with Pontius, and all were then set free, after giving up their armor and their cloaks and passing "under the yoke." But the Roman senate refused to ratify the treaty, and gave up those who had signed it to the Samnites. The latter refused to receive the offered prisoners and vainly demanded a fulfilment of the treaty. Their great victory had been thrown away, and, although they won another important success at Lautulæ, the final result of the war which they were forced to resume was disastrous to them. After twenty-two years of obstinate fighting they accepted terms (B. C. 304) which stripped them of all their territory on the sea-coast, and required them to acknowledge the supremacy of Rome. The peace so purchased lasted less than six years. The Samnites were tempted (B. C. 298) while the Romans had a war with Etruscans and Gauls on their hands, to attempt the avenging of their humiliations. Their fate was decided at the battle of Sentinum (B. C. 295), won by the old consul, Q. Fabius Maximus, against the allied Samnites and Gauls, through the heroic self-sacrifice of his colleague, P. Decius Mus [imitating his father, of the same name.]

See ROME: B. C. 339-338.

{2671}

The Samnites struggled hopelessly on some five years longer and submitted finally in 290 B. C. Their great leader, Pontius, was put to death in the dungeons of the state prison under the Capitoline.

J. Michelet, History of the Roman Republic, book 2, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, book 2, chapters 19, and 21-24.

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 6.

ROME: B. C. 340. The Publilian Laws.

"In the second year of the Latin war (340 B. C.) the Plebeian Consul, Q. Publilius Philo, being named Dictator by his Patrician colleague for some purpose now unknown, proposed and carried three laws still further abridging the few remaining privileges of the Patrician Lords. The first Publilian law enacted that one of the Censors, as one of the Consuls, must be a Plebeian. … The second gave fuller sanction to the principle already established, that the Resolutions of the Plebeian Assembly should have the force of law. The third provided that all laws passed at the Comitia of the Centuries or of the Tribes should receive beforehand the sanction of the Curies."

G. Liddell, History of Rome, book 3, chapter 20 (volume 1).

See a discussion of these laws in their relation to the preceding Valerio-Horatian law, and the subsequent Hortensian laws.

ROME: B. C. 286.

ROME: B. C. 339-338. Subjugation of the Latins. Grant of pseudo-citizenship. The real concession of the next century and its effects.

A league between the Romans and their kinsmen and neighbors, the Latins, of Tibur, Præneste, Lanuvium, Aricia, Velitræ, and other towns, as well as with the Hernicans, existed during a century and a half, from the treaty of Sp. Cassius, B. C. 493, according to the Roman annals. At first, the members of the league stood together on fairly equal terms fighting successful wars with the Volscians, the Æquians and the Etruscans. But all the time the Romans contrived to be the greater gainers by the alliance, and as their power grew their arrogance increased, until the Latin allies were denied almost all share in the conquests and the spoils which they helped to win. The discontent which this caused fermented to an outbreak after the first of the Samnite wars. The Latins demanded to be admitted to Roman citizenship and to a share in the government of the state. Their demand was haughtily and even insultingly refused, and a fierce, deadly war between the kindred peoples ensued (B. C. 339-338). The decisive battle of the war was fought under Mount Vesuvius, and the Romans were said to have owed their victory to the self-sacrifice of the plebeian consul, P. Decius Mus, who, by a solemn ceremony, devoted himself and the army of the enemy to the infernal gods, and then threw himself into the thick of the fight, to be slain. The Latin towns were all reduced to dependence upon Rome,—some with a certain autonomy left to them, some with none. "Thus, isolated, politically powerless, socially dependent on Rome, the old towns of the Latins, once so proud and so free, became gradually provincial towns of the Roman territory. … The old Latium disappeared and a new Latium took its place, which, by means of Latin colonies, carried the Roman institutions, in the course of two centuries, over the whole peninsula."

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 3, chapter 6 (volume 1).

"The Latins, being conquered, surrendered,—that is to say, they gave up to the Romans their cities, their worships, their laws, and their lands. Their position was cruel. A consul said in the senate that, if they did not wish Rome to be surrounded by a vast desert, the fate of the Latins should be settled with some regard to clemency. Livy does not clearly explain what was done. If we are to trust him, the Latins obtained the right of Roman citizenship without including in the political privileges the right of suffrage, or in the civil the right of marriage. We may also note, that these new citizens were not counted in the census. It is clear that the senate deceived the Latins in giving them the name of Roman citizens. This title disguised a real subjection, since the men who bore it had the obligations of citizens without the rights. So true is this, that several Latin cities revolted, in order that this pretended citizenship might be withdrawn. A century passed, and, without Livy's notice of the fact, we might easily discover that Rome had changed her policy. The condition of the Latins having the rights of citizens, without suffrage and without connubium, no longer existed. Rome had withdrawn from them the title of citizens, or, rather, had done away with this falsehood, and had decided to restore to the different cities their municipal governments, their laws, and their magistracies. But by a skilful device Rome opened a door which, narrow as it was, permitted subjects to enter the Roman city. It granted to every Latin who had been a magistrate in his native city the right to become a Roman citizen at the expiration of his term of office. This time the gift of this right was complete and without reserve; suffrage, magistracies, census, marriage, private law, all were included. … By being a citizen of Rome, a man gained honor, wealth, and security. The Latins, therefore, became eager to obtain this title, and used all sorts of means to acquire it. One day, when Rome wished to appear a little severe, she found that 12,000 of them had obtained it through fraud. Ordinarily, Rome shut her eyes, knowing that by this means her population increased, and that the losses of war were thus repaired. But the Latin cities suffered; their richest inhabitants became Roman citizens, and Latium was impoverished. The taxes, from which the richest were exempt as Roman citizens, became more and more burdensome, and the contingent of soldiers that had to be furnished to Rome was every year more difficult to fill up."

N. D. Fustel de Coulanges, The Ancient City, book 5, chapter 2.

ROME: B. C. 326-304? Abolition of personal slavery for debt.

See DEBT, ROMAN LAW CONCERNING.

ROME: B. C. 312. The censorship of Appius Claudius. His admission of the freedmen to the Tribes. The building of the Appian Way.

"Appius Claudius, … afterwards known as Appius the Blind, … was elected Censor [B. C. 312], … and, as was usual, entered, with his colleague, Plautius Decianus, upon the charge of filling the vacancies which had occurred within the Senate since the last nominations to that body by the preceding Censors. The new elections were always made, it appears, from certain lists of citizens who had either borne great offices or possessed high rank; but Appius, determined from the beginning to secure his authority, either for his own sake or for that of his faction, through any support he could command, now named several of the lowest men in Rome as Senators, amongst whom he even admitted some sons of freedmen, who, as such, were scarcely to be considered to be absolutely free, much less to be worthy of any political advancement. {2672} The nomination, backed by a powerful party, out of rather than in the Senate, and vainly, if not feebly, opposed by Plautius Decianus, who resigned his office in disgust at his colleague, was carried, but was set aside in the following year by the Consuls, who could call such Senators as they pleased, and those only, as it seems, to their sessions. Appius, still keeping his place, was soon after assailed by some of the Tribunes, now the representatives, as must be remembered, of the moderate party, rather than of the Plebeian estate. At this the Censor admitted all the freedmen in Rome to the Tribes, amongst which he distributed them in such a manner as promised him the most effectual support. Appius, however, was not wholly absorbed in mere political intrigues. A large portion of his energy and his ambition was spent upon the Way [Appian Way] and the Aqueduct which have borne his name to our day, and which, in his own time, were undertakings so vast as to obtain for him the name of 'the Hundred-handed.' He was an author, a jurist, a philosopher, and a poet, besides. … Cneius Flavius, the son of a freedman, one, therefore, of the partisans on whom the Censor and his faction were willing to lavish pretended favor in return for unstinted support, was employed by Appius near his person, in the capacity of private secretary. Appius, who, as already mentioned, was a jurist and an author, appears to have compiled a sort of manual concerning the business-days of the Calendar and the forms of instituting or conducting a suit before the courts; both these subjects being kept in profound concealment from the mass of the people, who were therefore obliged, in case of any legal proceeding, to resort first to the Pontiff to learn on what day, and next to the Patrician jurist to inquire in what form, they could lawfully manage their affairs before the judicial tribunals. This manual was very likely given to Flavius to copy; but it could scarcely have been with the knowledge, much less with the desire, of his employer, that it was published. … But Flavius stood in a position which tempted him, whether he were generous or designing, to divulge the secrets of the manual he had obtained; and it may very well have been from a desire to conciliate the real party of the Plebeians, which ranked above him, as a freedman, that he published his discoveries. He did not go unrewarded, but was raised to various offices, amongst them to the tribuneship of the Plebeians, and finally to the curule ædileship, in which his disclosures are sometimes represented as having been made. … The predominance of the popular party is plainly attested in the same year by the censorship of Fabius Rullianus and Decius Mus, the two great generals, who, succeeding to Appius Claudius, removed the freedmen he had enrolled amongst all the Tribes into four Tribes by themselves."

S. Eliot, The Liberty of Rome: Rome, book 2, chapter 8 (volume 2).

ROME: B. C. 300. The Ogulnian Law.

In the year 300 B. C., "Quintus and Cneius Ogulnius appear in the tribuneship, as zealous champions of the popular party against the combination of the highest and the lowest classes. Instead, however, of making any wild attack upon their adversaries, the Tribunes seem to have exerted themselves in the wiser view of detaching the populace from its Patrician leaders, in order to unite the severed forces of the Plebeians upon a common ground. … A bill to increase the number of the Pontiffs by four, and that of the Augurs by five new incumbents, who should then, and, as was probably added, thenceforward, be chosen from the Plebeians, was proposed by the Tribunes. … Though some strenuous opposition was made to its passage, it became a law. The highest places of the priesthood, as well as of the civil magistracies, were opened to the Plebeians, whose name will no longer serve us as it has done, so entirely have the old distinctions of their estate from that of the Patricians been obliterated. The Ogulnii did not follow up the success they had gained, and the alliance between the lower Plebeians and the higher Patricians was rather cemented than loosened by a law professedly devised to the advantage of the upper classes of the Plebeians."

_S. Eliot, Liberty of Rome: Rome, book 2, chapter 9 (volume 2). _

ROME: B. C. 295-191. Conquest of the Cisalpine Gauls.

Early in the 3d century B. C. the Gauls on the southern side of the Alps, being reinforced from Transalpine Gaul, again entered Roman territory, encouraged and assisted by the Samnites, who were then just engaging in their third war with Rome. A Roman legion which first encountered them in Etruria, under Scipio Barbatus, was annihilated, B. C. 295. But the vengeance of Rome overtook them before that year closed, at Sentinum, where the consuls Fabius and Decius ended the war at one blow. The Gauls were quiet after this for ten years; but in 285 B. C. the Senonian tribes invaded Etruria again and inflicted an alarming defeat on the Romans at Arretium. They also put to death some Roman ambassadors who were sent to negotiate an exchange of prisoners; after which the war of Rome against them was pushed to extermination. The whole race was destroyed or reduced to slavery and Roman colonies were established on its lands. The Boian Gauls, between the Apennines and the Po, now resented this intrusion on Gallic territory, but were terribly defeated at the Vadimonian Lake and sued for peace. This peace was maintained for nearly sixty years, during which time the Romans were strengthening themselves beyond the Apennines, with a strong colony at Ariminum (modern Rimini) on the Adriatic Sea, with thick settlements in the Senonian country, and with a great road—the Via Flaminia—in process of construction from Rome northwards across the Apennines, through Umbria and along the Adriatic coast to Ariminum. The Boians saw that the yoke was being prepared for them, and in 225 B. C. they made a great effort to break it. In the first encounter with them the Romans were beaten, as in previous wars, but at the great battle of Telamon, fought soon afterwards, the Gallic hosts were almost totally destroyed. The next year the Boians were completely subjugated, and in 223 and 222 B. C. the Insubrians were likewise conquered, their capital Mediolanum (Milan) occupied, and all north Italy to the Alps brought under Roman rule, except as the Ligurians in the mountains were still unsubdued and the Cenomanians and the Veneti retained a nominal independence as allies of Rome. {2673} But Hannibal's invasion of Italy, occurring soon after, interrupted the settlement and pacification of the Gallic country and made a reconquest necessary after the war with the Carthaginians had been ended. The new Roman fortified colony of Placentia was taken by the Gauls and most of the inhabitants slain. The sister colony of Cremona was besieged, but resisted until relieved. Among the battles fought, that of Comum, B. C. 196, appears to have been the most important. The war was prolonged until 191 B. C., after which there appears to have been no more resistance to Roman rule among the Cisalpine Gauls.

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 3, chapters 12-13; book 4. chapter 5; book 5, chapter 7.

ROME: B. C. 286. The last Secession of the Plebs. The Hortensian Laws.

"About the year 286 B. C. the mass of the poorer citizens [of Rome], consisting (as may be guessed) chiefly of those who had lately been enfranchised by Appius, left the city and encamped in an oak-wood upon the Janiculum. To appease this last Secession, Q. Hortensius was named Dictator, and he succeeded in bringing back the people by allowing them to enact several laws upon the spot. One of these Hortensian laws was probably an extension of the Agrarian law of Curius, granting not seven but fourteen jugera (about 9 acres) to each of the poorer citizens. Another provided for the reduction of debt. But that which is best known as the Hortensian law was one enacting that all Resolutions of the Tribes should be law for the whole Roman people. This was nearly in the same terms as the law passed by Valerius and Horatius at the close of the Decemvirate, and that passed by Publilius Philo the Dictator, after the conquest of Latium. Hortensius died in his Dictatorship,—an unparalleled event, which was considered ominous. Yet with his death ended the last Secession of the People."

H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, book 3, chapter 25 (volume 1).

"It is impossible to suppose that the assembly of the plebs advanced at a single step from the meeting of a private corporation to be the delegated alter ego of the sovereign populus Romanus. We may be sure that the right of the plebs to legislate for the nation was accorded under checks and qualifications, long before they were invested with this absolute authority. We find, in fact, two occasions prior to the Hortensian law, on which the legislative competency of the plebs is said to have been recognised. The first of these is the Valerio-Horatian Law of B. C. 449 [see ROME: B. C. 449], the year after the decemvirate, the second the law of the dictator Publilius Philo, B. C. 339 [see ROME: B. C. 340]. Unfortunately the historians describe these laws in words which merely repeat the contents of the Hortensian law. … Some modern writers have been disposed to get over the difficulty by the conjecture that the laws of Publilius Philo and Hortensius were only re-enactments of that of Valerius and Horatius, and that the full powers of the plebs date back to the year B. C. 449. Mommsen's arguments against this view appear to me conclusive. Why should the jurists universally refer the powers exercised by the plebs to a mere re-enactment, rather than to the original source of their authority? … Niebuhr believes that the law of Valerius and Horatius gave the plebs legislative authority, subject to the consent of a sort of upper house, the general assembly of the patrician body; he identifies this assembly with the 'comitia curiata.' … Mommsen's method of dealing with the question" is to strike out the Valerio-Horatian law and that of Publilius Philo from the series of enactments relating to the plebs. "He believes that both these laws regulated the proceedings of the 'comitia populi tributa,' and are transferred by a mere blunder of our authorities to the 'concilium plebis tributum.' … But the supposition of a possible blunder is too small a foundation on which to establish such an explanation. … I believe that, for the purpose of showing how the legislative power of the plebs may gradually have established itself, the known powers of the sovereign 'populus,' of the magistrates of the Roman people, and of the senate, will supply us with sufficient material; and that the assumptions of the German historians are therefore unnecessary. … I imagine … that the law of Valerius and Horatius simply recognised de jure the power which Icilius [see ROME: B. C. 456] had exercised de facto: that is to say, it ordered the consul to bring any petition of the plebs at once to the notice of the senate, and empowered the tribune to plead his cause before the senate; perhaps it went further and deprived the consul of his right of arbitrarily refusing to accede to the recommendation of the senate, if such were given, and directed that he should in such case convene the comitia and submit the proposal to its vote. If this restriction of the power of the consul removed the first obstacle in the way of tribunician bills supported by the vote of the plebs, another facility still remained to be given. The consul might be deprived of the opportunity of sheltering himself behind the moral responsibility of the senate. Does it not suggest itself as a plausible conjecture that the law of Publilius Philo struck out the intervening senatorial deliberation and compelled the consul to bring the petition of the plebs immediately before the 'comitia populi Romani'? If such were the tenor of the Publilian law, it would be only a very slight inaccuracy to describe it as conferring legislative power on the plebs. … The Hortensian law which formally transferred the sovereign power to the plebs would thus be a change greater de jure than de facto. … This power, if the theory put forward in these pages be correct, was placed within the reach of the plebeians by the law of Valerius and Horatius, and was fully secured to them by the law of Publilius Philo."

_J. L. Strachan-Davidson, The Growth of Plebeian Privilege at Rome (English Historical Review, April, 1886)._

"With the passing of the Lex Hortensia the long struggle between the orders came to an end. The ancient patrician gentes remained, but the exclusive privileges of the patriciate as a ruling order were gone. For the great offices of state and for seats in the senate the plebeians were by law equally eligible with patricians. The assemblies, whether of people or plebs, were independent of patrician control. In private life inter-marriages between patricians and plebeians were recognised as lawful, and entailed no disabilities on the children. Finally, great as continued to be the prestige attaching to patrician birth, and prominent as was the part played in the subsequent history by individual patricians and by some of the patrician houses, the plebs were now in numbers and even in wealth the preponderant section of the people. {2674} Whatever struggles might arise in the future, a second struggle between patricians and plebeians was an impossibility. Such being the case, it might have been expected that the separate organisation, to which the victory of the plebs was largely due, would, now that the reason for its existence was gone, have disappeared. Had this happened, the history of the republic might have been different. As it was, this plebeian machinery—the plebeian tribunes, assemblies, and resolutions—survived untouched, and lived to play a decisive part in a new conflict, not between patricians and plebeians, but between a governing class, itself mainly plebeian, and the mass of the people, and finally to place at the head of the state a patrician Cæsar. Nor was the promise of a genuine democracy, offered by the opening of the magistracies and the Hortensian law, fulfilled. For one hundred and fifty years afterwards the drift of events was in the opposite direction, and when the popular leaders of the first century B. C. endeavoured to make government by the people a reality, it was already too late."

H. F. Pelham, Outlines of Roman History, book 2, chapter 1.

ROME: B. C. 282-275. War with Tarentum and Pyrrhus.

The conquest of the Samnites by the Romans, which was completed in 290 B. C., extended the power of the latter to the very gates of the Greek cities on the Tarentine gulf, of which Tarentum was the chief. At once there arose a party in Tarentum which foresaw the hopelessness of resistance to Roman aggression and favored a spontaneous submission to the supremacy of the formidable city on the Tiber. The patriotic party which opposed this humiliation looked abroad for aid, and found an eager ally in the Molossian king of Epirus, the adventurous and warlike Pyrrhus (see EPIRUS), who sprang from the family of Olympias, mother of Alexander the Great. In the autumn of 282 B. C., the inevitable war between Rome and Tarentum broke out, and early in 280 B. C. Pyrrhus landed a powerful army in Italy, comprising 20,000 heavy-armed foot-soldiers, 3,000 horse, 2,000 archers and 20 elephants. The Romans met him soon after at Heraclea, on the coast. It was the first collision of the Roman legion and the Macedonian phalanx, and the first encounter of the Latin soldier with the huge war-beast of the Asiatics. Pyrrhus won a bloody victory, but won it at such cost that it terrified him. He tried at once to arrange a peace, but the proud Romans made no terms with an invader. Next year he inflicted another great defeat upon them near Asculum, in Apulia; but nothing seemed to come of it, and the indomitable Romans were as little conquered as ever. Then the restless Epirot king took his much shaken army over to Sicily and joined the Greeks there in their war with the Carthaginians. The latter were driven out of all parts of the island except Lilybæum; but failing, after a long siege, to reduce Lilybæum, Pyrrhus lost the whole fruits of his success. The autumn of 276 B. C. found him back again in Italy, where the Romans, during his absence of three years, had recovered much ground. Next year, in the valley of Beneventum, they had their revenge upon him for Heraclea and Asculum, and he was glad to take the shattered remains of his army back to Greece. His career of ambition and adventure was ended three years afterwards, under the walls of Argos, by a tile which a woman flung down upon his head.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 277-244.

In due time all Magna Græcia succumbed to the dominion of Rome, and the commerce and wealth of Tarentum passed over under Roman auspices to the new port of Brundisium, on the Adriatic side of the same promontory.

T. Arnold, History of Rome, chapters 36-37 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 3, chapters 14-17.

ROME: B. C. 275. Union of Italy under the sovereignty of the republic. Differing relations of the subject communities to the sovereign state. Roman citizenship as variously qualified.

"For the first time Italy was united into one state under the sovereignty of the Roman community. What political privileges the Roman community on this occasion withdrew from the various other Italian communities and took into its own sole keeping, or in other words, what conception of political power is to be associated with this sovereignty of Rome, we are nowhere expressly informed. … The only privileges that demonstrably belonged to it were the right of making war, of concluding treaties, and of coining money. No Italian community could declare war against any foreign state, or even negotiate with it, or coin money for circulation. On the other hand, every war and every state-treaty resolved upon by the Roman people were binding in law on all the other Italian communities, and the silver money of Rome was legally current throughout all Italy. It is probable that formerly the general rights of the leading community extended no further. But to these rights there was necessarily attached a prerogative of sovereignty that practically went far beyond them. The relations, which the Italians sustained to the leading community, exhibited in detail great inequalities. In this point of view, in addition to the full burgesses of Rome, there were three different classes of subjects to be distinguished. The full franchise itself, in the first place, was extended as far as was possible, without wholly abandoning the idea of an urban commonwealth in the case of the Roman commune. Not only was the old burgess-domain extended by individual assignation far into Etruria on the one hand and into Campania on the other, but, after the example was first set in the case of Tusculum, a great number of communities more or less remote were gradually incorporated with the Roman state and merged in it completely. … Accordingly the Roman burgess-body probably extended northward as far as the neighbourhood of Caere, eastward to the Apennines, and southward as far as, or beyond, Formiae. In its case, however, we cannot use the term 'boundaries' in a strict sense. Isolated communities within this region, such as Tibur, Praeneste, Signia, and Norba, had not the Roman franchise; others beyond its bounds, such as Sena, possessed it; and it is probable that families of Roman farmers were already dispersed throughout all Italy, either altogether isolated or associated in villages. Among the subject communities the most privileged and most important class was that of the Latin towns, which now embraced but few of the original participants in the Alban festival (and these, with the exception of Tibur and Praeneste, altogether insignificant communities), but on the other hand obtained accessions equally numerous and important in the autonomous communities founded by Rome in and even beyond Italy —the Latin colonies, as they were called—and was always increasing in consequence of new settlements of the same nature. {2675} These new urban communities of Roman origin, but with Latin rights, became more and more the real buttresses of the Roman rule. These Latins, however, were by no means those with whom the battles of the lake Regillus and Trifanum had been fought. … The Latins of the later times of the republic, on the contrary, consisted almost exclusively of communities, which from the beginning had honoured Rome as their capital and parent city; which, settled amidst peoples of alien language and of alien habits, were attached to Rome by community of language, of law, and of manners; which, as the petty tyrants of the surrounding districts, were obliged doubtless to lean on Rome for their very existence, like advanced posts leaning upon the main army. … The main advantage enjoyed by them, as compared with other subjects, consisted in their equalization with burgesses of the Roman community so far as regarded private rights—those of traffic and barter as well as those of inheritance. The Roman franchise was in future conferred only on such citizens of these townships as had filled a public magistracy in them: in that case, however, it was, apparently from the first, conferred without any limitation of rights. … The two other classes of Roman subjects, the subject Roman burgesses and the non-Latin allied communities, were in a far inferior position. The communities having the Roman franchise without the privilege of electing or being elected (civitas sine suffragio), approached nearer in form to the full Roman burgesses than the Latin communities that were legally autonomous. Their members were, as Roman burgesses, liable to all the burdens of citizenship, especially to the levy and taxation, and were subject to the Roman census; whereas, as their very designation indicates, they had no claim to its honorary rights. They lived under Roman laws, and had justice administered by Roman judges; but the hardship was lessened by the fact that their former common law was, after undergoing revision by Rome, restored to them as Roman local law, and a 'deputy' (praefectus) annually nominated by the Roman praetor was sent to them to conduct its administration. In other respects these communities retained their own administration, and chose for that purpose their own chief magistrates. … Lastly, the relations of the non-Latin allied communities were subject, as a matter of course, to very various rules, just as each particular treaty of alliance had defined them. Many of these perpetual treaties of alliance, such as that with the Hernican communities and those with Neapolis, Nola, and Heraclea, granted rights comparatively comprehensive, while others, such as the Tarentine and Samnite treaties, probably approximated to despotism. … The central administration at Rome solved the difficult problem of preserving its supervision and control over the mass of the Italian communities liable to furnish contingents, partly by means of the four Italian quaestors, partly by the extension of the Roman censorship over the whole of the dependent communities. The quaestors of the fleet, along with their more immediate duty, had to raise the revenues from the newly acquired domains and to control the contingents of the new allies; they were the first Roman functionaries to whom a residence and district out of Rome were assigned by law, and they formed the necessary intermediate authority between the Roman senate and the Italian communities. … Lastly, with this military administrative union of the whole peoples dwelling to the south of the Apennines, as far as the Iapygian promontory and the straits of Rhegium, was connected the rise of a new name common to them all—that of 'the men of the toga' (togati), which was their oldest designation in Roman state law, or that of the 'Italians,' which was the appellation originally in use among the Greeks and thence became universally current. … As the Gallic territory down to a late period stood contrasted in law with the Italian, so the 'men of the toga' were thus named in contrast to the Celtic 'men of the hose' (braccati); and it is probable that the repelling of the Celtic invasions played an important diplomatic part as a reason or pretext for centralizing the military resources of Italy in the hands of the Romans. … The name Italia, which originally and even in the Greek authors of the 5th century—in Aristotle for instance—pertained only to the modern Calabria, was transferred to the whole land of these wearers of the toga. The earliest boundaries of this great armed confederacy led by Rome, or of the new Italy, reached on the western coast as far as the district of Leghorn south of the Arnus, on the east as far as the Aesis north of Ancona. …The new Italy had thus become a political unity; it was also in the course of becoming a national unity."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 7 (volume 1).

ROME: B. C. 264-241. The first Punic War. Conquest of Sicily.

"The ten years preceding the First Punic War were probably a time of the greatest physical prosperity which the mass of the Roman people ever knew. Within twenty years two agrarian laws had been passed on a most extensive scale, and the poorer citizens had received besides what may be called a large dividend in money out of the lands which the state had conquered. In addition to this, the farming of the state domains, or of their produce, furnished those who had money with abundant opportunities of profitable adventure. … No wonder, then, that war was at this time popular. … But our 'pleasant vices' are ever made instruments to scourge us; and the First Punic War, into which the Roman people forced the senate to enter, not only in its long course bore most heavily upon the poorer citizens, but, from the feelings of enmity which it excited in the breast of Hamilcar, led most surely to that fearful visitation of Hannibal's sixteen years' invasion of Italy, which destroyed for ever, not indeed the pride of the Roman dominion, but the well-being of the Roman people."

T. Arnold, History of Rome, pages 538-540.

"The occasion of the First Punic War was dishonourable to Rome. Certain mercenary soldiers had seized Messana in Sicily, destroyed the citizens, and held possession against the Syracusans, 284 B. C. They were beaten in the field, and blockaded in Messana by Hiero, king of Syracuse, and then, driven to extremity, sent a deputation to Rome, praying that 'the Romans, the sovereigns of Italy, would not suffer an Italian people to be destroyed by Greeks and Carthaginians,' 264 B. C. It was singular that such a request should be made to the Romans, who only six years before had chastised the military revolt of their brethren Mamertines in Rhegium, taking the city by storm, scourging and beheading the defenders, and then restoring the old inhabitants (270 B. C.). {2676} The senate was opposed to the request of the Messana deputation; but the consuls and the people of Rome, already jealous of Carthaginian influence in Sicily and the Mediterranean, resolved to protect the Mamertine buccaneers and to receive them as their friends and allies. Thus dishonestly and disgracefully did the Romans depart from their purely Italian and continental policy, which had so well succeeded, to enter upon another system, the results of which no one then could foresee. Some excuse may be found in the fact that the Carthaginians had been placed by their partisans in Messana in possession of the citadel, and this great rival power of Carthage was thus brought unpleasantly near to the recent conquered territory of Rome. The fear of Carthaginian influence overcame the natural reluctance to an alliance with traitors false to their military oath, the murderers and plunderers of a city which they were bound to protect. Thus began 'the First Punic War, which lasted, without intermission, 22 years, a longer space of time than the whole period occupied by the wars of the French Revolution.' In this war Duilius won the first naval battle near Mylæ (Melarro). Regulus invaded Africa proper, the territory of Carthage, with great success, until beaten and taken prisoner at Zama, 256-255 B. C. The war was carried on in Sicily and on the sea until 241 B. C., when peace was made on conditions that the Carthaginians should evacuate Sicily and make no war upon Hiero, king of Sicily (the ally of the Romans), that they should pay 3,200 Euboic talents (about £110,000) within ten years, 241 B. C. The effects of an exhausting war were soon overcome by ancient nations, so that both Rome and Carthage rapidly recovered, 'because wars in those days were not maintained at the expense of posterity.' Rome had to check the Illyrian pirates and to complete the conquest of Cisalpine Gaul and the Ligurians 238-221 B. C. Meanwhile the Carthaginians, hampered by a three years' rebellion of its mercenary troops, quietly permitted the Romans to take possession of Corsica and Sardinia, and agreed to pay 1,200 talents as compensation to Roman merchants. On the other hand, measures were in process to re-establish the Carthaginian power; the patriotic party, the Barcine family, under Hamilcar, commenced the carrying out of the extensions and consolidations of the territories in Spain."

W. B. Boyce, Introduction to the Study of History, period 4, section 4.

ALSO IN: Polybius, Histories, book 1.

R. B. Smith, Carthage, chapters 4-7.

A. J. Church, The Story of Carthage, part 4, chapters 1-3.

See, also, PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

ROME: B. C. 218-211. The Second Punic War; Hannibal in Italy. Cannæ.

"Twenty-three years passed between the end of the first Punic War and the beginning of the second. But in the meanwhile the Romans got possession, rather unfairly, of the islands of Sardinia and Corsica, which Carthage had kept by the peace. On the other hand a Carthaginian dominion was growing up in Spain under Hamilcar Barkas, one of the greatest men that Carthage ever reared, his son-in-law Hasdrubal, and his son Hannibal, the greatest man of all, and probably the greatest general that the world ever saw. Another quarrel arose between Carthage and Rome, when Hannibal took the Spanish town of Saguntum, which the Romans claimed as an ally. War began in 218, and Hannibal carried it on by invading Italy by land. This was one of the most famous enterprises in all history. Never was Rome so near destruction as in the war with Hannibal. He crossed the Alps and defeated the Romans in four battles, the greatest of which was that of Cannae in B. C. 216."

E. A. Freeman, Outlines of History (or General Sketch of European History), chapter 3.

"The first battle was fought (218) on the river Ticinus, which runs into the Padus from the north. The Romans were driven back, and Hannibal passed the Padus. Meanwhile another Roman army had come up, and its general, the consul, Tiberius Sempronius Longus, wanted to fight at once. The little river of the Trebbia lay between the two armies, and on a cold morning the Roman general marched his soldiers through the water against Hannibal. The Romans were entirely beaten, and driven out of Gaul. All northern Italy had thus passed under Hannibal's power, and its people were his friends; so next year, 217, Hannibal went into Etruria, and marched south towards Rome itself, plundering as he went. The Roman consul, Caius Flaminius Nepos, went to meet him, and a battle was fought on the shores of the Lake Trasimenus. It was a misty day, and the Romans, who were marching after Hannibal, were surrounded by him and taken by surprise: they were entirely beaten, and the consul was killed in battle. Then the Romans were in great distress, and elected a dictator, Quintus Fabius Maximus. He saw that it was no use to fight battles with Hannibal, so he followed him about, and watched him, and did little things against him when he could; so he was called 'Cunctator,' or 'the Delayer.' But, although this plan of waiting was very useful, the Romans did not like it, for Hannibal was left to plunder as he thought fit, and there was always danger that the other Italians would join him against Rome. So next year, 216, the Romans made a great attempt to get rid of him. They sent both the consuls with an army twice as large as Hannibal's, but again they were defeated at Cannæ. They lost 70,000 men, while Hannibal only lost 6,000; all their best soldiers were killed, and it seemed as though they had no hope left. But nations are not conquered only by the loss of battles. Hannibal hoped, after the battle of Cannæ, that the Italians would all come to his side, and leave Rome. Some did so, but all the Latin cities, and all the Roman colonies held by Rome. So long as this was the case, Rome was not yet conquered. Hannibal could win battles very quickly, but it would take him a long time to besiege all the cities that still held to Rome, and for that he must have a larger army. But he could not get more soldiers,—the Romans had sent an army into Spain, and Hannibal's brother, Hasdrubal, was busy fighting the Romans there, and could not send any troops to Italy. The Carthaginians also would not send any, for they were becoming afraid of Hannibal, and they did not know anything about Italy. So they answered his letters, asking for more men, by saying, that if he had won such great battles, he ought not to want any more troops. {2677} At Cannæ, then, Hannibal had struck his greatest blow: he could do no more. The Romans had learned to wait, and be careful: so they fought no more great battles, but every year they grew stronger and Hannibal grew weaker. The chief town that had gone over to Hannibal's side was Capua, but in 211 the Romans took it again, and Hannibal was not strong enough to prevent them. The chief men of Capua were so afraid of falling into the hands of the Romans that they all poisoned themselves. After this all the Italian cities that had joined Hannibal began to leave him again."

M. Creighton, History of Rome, chapter 3.

ALSO IN: T. A. Dodge, Hannibal, chapters 11-39.

T. Arnold, History of Rome, chapters 43-47.

See, also, PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

ROME: B. C. 214-146. The Macedonian Wars. Conquest of Greece.

See GREECE: B. C. 214-146; also 280-146.

ROME: B. C. 211. The Second Punic War: Hannibal at the gates.

In the eighth year of the Second Punic War (B. C. 211), when fortune had begun to desert the arms of Hannibal—when Capua, his ally and mainstay in Italy was under siege by the Romans and he was powerless to relieve the doomed senators and citizens—the Carthaginian commander made a sudden march upon Rome. He moved his army to the gates of his great enemy, "not with any hope of taking the city, but with the hope that the Romans, panic-stricken at the realization of a fear they had felt for five years past, would summon the consuls from the walls of Capua. But the cool head of Fabius, who was in Rome, guessed the meaning of that manœuvre, and would only permit one of the consuls, Flaccus, to be recalled. Thus the leaguer of the rebel city was not broken. Hannibal failed in his purpose, but he left an indelible impression of his terrible presence upon the Roman mind. Looming through a mist of romantic fable, unconquerable, pitiless, he was actually seen touching the walls of Rome, hurling with his own hand a spear into the sacred Pomoerium. He had marched along the Via Latina, driving crowds of fugitives before him, who sought refuge in the city. … He had fixed his camp on the Anio, within three miles of the Esquiline. To realize the state of feeling in Rome during those days of panic would be to get at the very heart of the Hannibalic war. The Senate left the Curia and sat in the Forum, to reassure, by their calm composure, the excited crowds. Fabius noticed from the battlements that the ravagers spared his property. It was a cunning attempt on the part of Hannibal to bring suspicion on him; but he forthwith offered the property for sale; and such was the effect of his quiet confidence that the market price even of the land on which the camp of the enemy was drawn never fell an 'as.' … Hannibal marched away into the Sabine country, and made his way back to Tarentum, Rome unsacked, Capua unrelieved."

R. F. Horton, History of the Romans, chapter 12.

ALSO IN: T. Arnold, History of Rome, chapter 44.

T. A. Dodge, Hannibal, chapter 34.

ROME: B. C. 211-202. The Second Punic War: Defeat of Hasdrubal at the Metaurus. The war in Africa. The end at Zama. Acquisition of Spain.

"The conquest of Capua was the turning point in the war. Hannibal lost his stronghold in Campania and was obliged to retire to the southern part of Italy. Rome was gaining everywhere. The Italians who had joined Hannibal began to lose confidence. Salapia and many towns in Samnium were betrayed to the Romans. But when Fulvius, the proconsul who commanded in Apulia, appeared before Herdonea, which he hoped to gain possession of by treachery, Hannibal marched from Bruttium, attacked the Roman army, and gained a brilliant victory. In the following year the Romans recovered several places in Lucania and Bruttium, and Fabius Maximus crowned his long military career with the recapture of Tarentum (B. C. 209). The inhabitants were sold as slaves; the town was plundered and the works of art were sent to Rome. The next year Marcellus, for the fifth time elected to the consulship, was surprised near Venusia and killed. … The war had lasted ten years, yet its favorable conclusion seemed far off. There were increasing symptoms of discontent among the allies, while the news from Spain left little doubt that the long prepared expedition of Hasdrubal over the Alps to join his brother in Italy was at last to be realized. Rome strained every nerve to meet the impending danger. The number of legions was increased from twenty-one to twenty-three. The preparations were incomplete, when the news came that Hasdrubal was crossing the Alps by the same route which his brother had taken eleven years before. The consuls for the new year were M. Livius Salinator and G. Claudius Nero. Hannibal, at the beginning of spring, after reorganizing his force in Bruttium, advanced northward, encountered the consul Nero at Grumentum, whence, after a bloody but indecisive battle, he continued his march to Canusium. Here he waited for news from his brother. The expected despatch was intercepted by Nero, who formed the bold resolution of joining his colleague in the north, and with their united armies crushing Hasdrubal while Hannibal was waiting for the expected despatch. Hasdrubal had appointed a rendezvous with his brother in Umbria, whence with their united armies they were both to advance on Narnia and Rome. Nero, selecting from his army 7,000 of the best soldiers and 1,000 cavalry, left his camp so quietly that Hannibal knew nothing of his departure. Near Sena he found his colleague Livius, and in the night entered his camp that his arrival might not be known to the Carthaginians. Hasdrubal, when he heard the trumpet sound twice from the Roman camp and saw the increased numbers, was no longer ignorant that both consuls were in front of him. Thinking that his brother had been defeated, he resolved to retire across the Metaurus and wait for accurate information. Missing his way, wandering up and down the river to find a ford, pursued and attacked by the Romans, he was compelled to accept battle. Although in an unfavorable position, a deep river in his rear, his troops exhausted by marching all night, still the victory long hung in suspense. Hasdrubal displayed all the qualities of a great general, and when he saw that all was lost, he plunged into the thickest of the battle and was slain. The consul returned to Apulia with the same rapidity with which he had come. He announced to Hannibal the defeat and death of his brother by casting Hasdrubal's head within the outposts and by sending two Carthaginian captives to give him an account of the disastrous battle. {2678} 'I foresee the doom of Carthage,' said Hannibal sadly, when he recognized the bloody head of his brother. This battle decided the war in Italy. Hannibal withdrew his garrisons from the towns in southern Italy, retired to the peninsula of Bruttium, where for four long years, in that wild and mountainous country, with unabated courage and astounding tenacity, the dying lion clung to the land that had been so long the theatre of his glory. … The time had come to carry into execution that expedition to Africa which Sempronius had attempted in the beginning of the war. Publius Scipio, on his return from Spain, offered himself for the consulship and was unanimously elected. His design was to carry the war into Africa and in this way compel Carthage to recall Hannibal. … The senate finally consented that he should cross from his province of Sicily to Africa, but they voted no adequate means for such an expedition. Scipio called for volunteers. The whole of the year B. C. 205 passed away before he completed his preparations. Meanwhile the Carthaginians made one last effort to help Hannibal. Mago, Hannibal's youngest brother, was sent to Liguria with 14,000 men to rouse the Ligurians and Gauls to renew the war on Rome; but having met a Roman army under Quintilius Varus, and being wounded in the engagement which followed, his movements were so crippled that nothing of importance was accomplished. In the spring of B. C. 204 Scipio had completed his preparations. He embarked his army from Lilybæum, and after three days landed at the Fair Promontory near Utica. After laying siege to Utica all summer, he was compelled to fall back and entrench himself on the promontory. Masinissa had joined him immediately on his arrival. By his advice Scipio planned a night attack on Hasdrubal, the son of Gisgo, and Syphax, who were encamped near Utica. This enterprise was completely successful. A short time afterwards Hasdrubal and Syphax were again defeated. Syphax fled to Numidia, where he was followed by Lælius and Masinissa and compelled to surrender. These successes convinced the Carthaginians that with the existing forces the Roman invasion could not long be resisted. Therefore they opened negotiations for peace with Scipio, in order probably to gain time to recall their generals from Italy. The desire of Scipio to bring the war to a conclusion induced him to agree upon preliminaries of peace, subject to the approval of the Roman senate and people. … Meanwhile the arrival of Hannibal at Hadrumetum had so encouraged the Carthaginians that the armistice had been broken before the return of the ambassadors from Rome. All hopes of peace by negotiation vanished, and Scipio prepared to renew the war, which, since the arrival of Hannibal, had assumed a more serious character. The details of the operations which ended in the battle of Zama are but imperfectly known. The decisive battle was fought on the river Bagradas, near Zama, on the 19th of October, B. C. 202. Hannibal managed the battle with his usual skill. His veterans fought like the men who had so often conquered in Italy, but his army was annihilated. The elephants were rendered unavailing by Scipio's skillful management. Instead of the three lines of battle, with the usual intervals, Scipio arranged his companies behind each other like the rounds of a ladder. Through these openings the elephants could pass without breaking the line. This battle terminated the long struggle. … Hannibal himself advised peace."

R. F. Leighton, History of Rome, chapters 23-24.

"Scipio prepared as though he would besiege the city, but his heart also inclined to peace. … The terms which he offered were severe enough, and had the Carthaginians only realised what they involved, they would surely have asked to be allowed to meet their fate at once. They were to retain indeed their own laws and their home domain in Africa; but they were to give up all the deserters and prisoners of war, all their elephants, and all their ships of the line but ten. They were not to wage war, either in Africa or outside of it, without the sanction of the Roman Senate. They were to recognise Massinissa as the king of Numidia, and, with it, the prescriptive right which he would enjoy of plundering and annoying them at his pleasure, while they looked on with their hands tied, not daring to make reprisals. Finally, they were to give up all claim to the rich islands of the Mediterranean and to the Spanish kingdom, the creation of the Barcides, of which the fortune of war had already robbed them; and thus shorn of the sources of their wealth, they were to pay within a given term of seven years a crushing war contribution! Henceforward, in fact, they would exist on sufferance only, and that the sufferance of the Romans. … The conclusion of the peace was celebrated at Carthage by a cruel sight, the most cruel which the citizens could have beheld, except the destruction of the city itself—the destruction of their fleet. Five hundred vessels, the pride and glory of the Phœnician race, the symbol and the seal of the commerce, the colonisation, and the conquests of this most imperial of Phœnician cities, were towed out of the harbour and were deliberately burned in the sight of the citizens."

R. B. Smith, Rome and Carthage: the Punic Wars, chapter 17.

ALSO IN: H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, chapters 31-34.

See, also. PUNIC WAR: THE SECOND.

ROME: B. C. 2d Century. Greek influences.

See HELLENIC GENIUS AND INFLUENCE.

ROME: B. C. 191. War with Antiochus the Great of Syria. First conquests in Asia Minor bestowed on the king of Pergamum and the Republic of Rhodes.

See SELEUCIDÆ: B. U. 224-187.

ROME: B. C. 189-139. Wars with the Lusitanians.

See PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY; and LUSITANIA.

ROME: B. C. 184-149. The Spoils of Conquest and the Corruption they wrought.

"The victories of the last half-century seemed to promise ease and wealth to Rome. She was to live on the spoils and revenue from the conquered countries. Not only did they pay a fixed tax to her exchequer, but the rich lands of Capua, the royal domain lands of the kings of Syracuse and of Macedonia, became public property, and produced a large annual rent. It was found possible in 167 to relieve citizens from the property tax or tributum, which was not collected again until the year after the death of Julius Caesar. But the sudden influx of wealth had the usual effect of raising the standard of expense; and new tastes and desires required increased means for their gratification. All manner of luxuries were finding their way into the city from the East. {2679} Splendid furniture, costly ornaments, wanton dances and music for their banquets, became the fashion among the Roman nobles; and the younger men went to lengths of debauchery and extravagance hitherto unknown. The result to many was financial embarrassment, from which relief was sought in malversation and extortion. The old standard of honour in regard to public money was distinctly lowered, and cases of misconduct and oppression were becoming more common and less reprobated. … The fashionable taste for Greek works of art, in the adornment of private houses, was another incentive to plunder, and in 149 it was for the first time found necessary to establish a permanent court or 'quaestio' for cases of malversation in the provinces. Attempts were indeed made to restrain the extravagance which was at the root of the evil. In 184 Cato, as censor, had imposed a tax on the sale of slaves under twenty above a certain price, and on personal ornaments above a certain value; and though the 'lex Oppia,' limiting the amount of women's jewelry, had been repealed in spite of him in 195, other sumptuary laws were passed. A 'lex Orchia' in 182 limited the number of guests, a 'lex Fannia' in 161 the amount to be spent on banquets; while a 'lex Didia' in 143 extended the operation of the law to all Italy. And though such laws, even if enforced, could not really remedy the evil, they perhaps had a certain effect in producing a sentiment; for long afterwards we find overcrowded dinners regarded as indecorous and vulgar. Another cause, believed by some to be unfavourably affecting Roman character, was the growing influence of Greek culture and Greek teachers. For many years the education of the young, once regarded as the special business of the parents, had been passing into the hands of Greek slaves or freedmen. … On the superiority of Greek culture there was a division of opinion. The Scipios and their party patronised Greek philosophy and literature. … This tendency, which went far beyond a mere question of literary taste, was opposed by a party of which M. Porcius Cato was the most striking member. … In Cato's view the reform needed was a return to the old ways, before Rome was infected by Greece."

E. S. Shuckburgh, History of Rome to the Battle of Actium, chapter 32.

ROME: B. C. 159-133. Decline of the Republic. Social and economic causes. The growing system of Slavery and its effects. Monopoly of land by capitalists. Extinction of small cultivators. Rapid decrease of citizens.

"In the Rome of this epoch the two evils of a degenerate oligarchy and a democracy not yet developed but already cankered in the bud were interwoven in a manner pregnant with fatal results. According to their party names, which were first heard during this period, the ' Optimates' wished to give effect to the will of the best, the 'Populares' to that of the community; but in fact there was in the Rome of that day neither a true aristocracy nor a truly self-determining community. Both parties contended alike for shadows. … Both were equally affected by political corruption, and both were in fact equally worthless. … The commonwealth was politically and morally more and more unhinged, and was verging towards its total dissolution. The crisis with which the Roman revolution was opened arose not out of this paltry political conflict, but out of the economic and social relations which the Roman government allowed, like everything else, simply to take their course"; and which had brought about "the depreciation of the Italian farms; the supplanting of the petty husbandry, first in a part of the provinces and then in Italy, by the farming of large estates; the prevailing tendency to devote the latter in Italy to the rearing of cattle and the culture of the olive and vine; finally, the replacing of the free labourers in the provinces as in Italy by slaves. … Before we attempt to describe the course of this second great conflict between labour and capital, it is necessary to give here some indication of the nature and extent of the system of slavery. We have not now to do with the old, in some measure innocent, rural slavery, under which the farmer either tilled the field along with his slave, or, if he possessed more land than he could manage, placed the slave … over a detached farm. … What we now refer to is the system of slavery on a great scale, which in the Roman state, as formerly in the Carthaginian, grew out of the ascendancy of capital. While the captives taken in war and the hereditary transmission of slavery sufficed to keep up the stock of slaves during the earlier period, this system of slavery was, just like that of America, based on the methodically prosecuted hunting of man. … No country where this species of game could be hunted remained exempt from visitation; even in Italy it was a thing by no means unheard of, that the poor free man was placed by his employer among the slaves. But the Negroland of that period was western Asia, where the Cretan and Cilician corsairs, the real professional slave-hunters and slave-dealers, robbed the coasts of Syria and the Greek islands; and where, emulating their feats, the Roman revenue-farmers instituted human hunts in the client states and incorporated those whom they captured among their slaves. … At the great slave market in Delos, where the slave-dealers of Asia Minor disposed of their wares to Italian speculators, on one day as many as 10,000 slaves are said to have been disembarked in the morning and to have heen all sold before evening. … In whatever direction speculation applied itself, its instrument was invariably man reduced in the eye of the law to a brute. Trades were in great part carried on by slaves, so that the proceeds belonged to the master. The levying of the public revenues in the lower departments was regularly conducted by the slaves of the associations that leased them. Servile hands performed the operations of mining, making pitch, and others of a similar kind; it became early the custom to send herds of slaves to the Spanish mines. … The tending of cattle was universally performed by slaves. … But far worse in every respect was the plantation system proper—the cultivation of the fields by a band of slaves not unfrequent]y branded with iron, who with shackles on their legs performed the labours of the field under overseers during the day, and were locked up together by night in the common, frequently subterranean, labourers' prison. This plantation system had migrated from the East to Carthage, … and seems to have been brought by the Carthaginians to Sicily. … {2680} The abyss of misery and woe which opens before our eyes in this most miserable of all proletariates, we leave to be fathomed by those who venture to gaze into such depths; It is very possible that, compared with the sufferings of the Roman slaves, the sum of all Negro suffering is but a drop. Here we are not so much concerned with the distress of the slaves themselves as with the perils which it brought upon the Roman state. …

See SLAVE WARS IN SICILY AND ITALY.

The capitalists continued to buy out the small landholders, or indeed, if they remained obstinate, to seize their fields without title of purchase. … The landlords continued mainly to employ slaves instead of free labourers, because the former could not like the latter be called away to military service; and thus reduced the free proletariate to the same level of misery with the slaves. They continued to supersede Italian grain in the market of the capital, and to lessen its value over the whole peninsula, by selling Sicilian slave-corn at a mere nominal price. … After 595 [B. C. 159], … when the census yielded 328,000 citizens capable of bearing arms, there appears a regular falling off, for the list in 600 [B. C. 154] stood at 324,000, that in 607 [B. C. 147] at 322,000, that in 623 [B. C. 131] at 319,000 burgesses fit for service—an alarming result for a period of profound peace at home and abroad. If matters were to go on at this rate, the burgess-body would resolve itself into planters and slaves; and the Roman state might at length, as was the case with the Parthians, purchase its soldiers in the slave-market. Such was the external and internal condition of Rome, when the state entered on the 7th century of its existence. Wherever the eye turned, it encountered abuses and decay; the question could not but force itself on every sagacious and well disposed man, whether this state of things were not capable of remedy or amendment."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 4, chapter 2 (volume 3).

ALSO IN: T. Arnold, History of the Roman Commonwealth, chapter 2.

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 1, chapters 10-12.

W. R. Brownlow, Slavery and Serfdom in Europe, lectures 1-2.

ROME: B. C. 151-146. The Third Punic War: Destruction of Carthage.

"Carthage, bound hand and foot by the treaty of 201 B. C., was placed under the jealous watch of the loyal prince of Numidia, who himself willingly acknowledged the suzerainty of Rome. But it was impossible for this arrangement to be permanent. Every symptom of reviving prosperity at Carthage was regarded at Rome with feverish anxiety, and neither the expulsion of Hannibal in 195 B. C. nor his death in 183 B. C. did much to check the growing conviction that Rome would never be secure while her rival existed. It was therefore with grim satisfaction that many in the Roman senate watched the increasing irritation of the Carthaginians under the harassing raids and encroachments of their favoured neighbour, Masinissa, and waited for the moment when Carthage should, by some breach of the conditions imposed upon her, supply Rome with a pretext for interference. At last in 151 B. C. came the news that Carthage, in defiance of treaty obligations, was actually at war with Masinissa. The anti-Carthaginian party in the senate, headed by M. Porcius Cato, eagerly seized the opportunity; in spite of the protests of Scipio Nasica and others, war was declared, and nothing short of the destruction of their city itself was demanded from the despairing Carthaginians. This demand, as the senate, no doubt, foresaw, was refused, and in 149 B. C. the siege of Carthage began. During the next two years little progress was made, but in 147 P. Cornelius Scipio Æmilianus, son of L. Æmilius Paulus, conqueror of Macedonia, and grandson by adoption of the conqueror of Hannibal, was, at the age of 37, and though only a candidate for the ædileship, elected consul and given the command in Africa. In the next year (146 B. C.) Carthage was taken and razed to the ground. Its territory became the Roman province of Africa, while Numidia, now ruled by the three sons of Masinissa, remained as an allied state under Roman suzerainty, and served to protect the new province against the raids of the desert tribes. Within little more than a century from the commencement of the first Punic war, the whole of the former dominions of Carthage had been brought under the direct rule of Roman magistrates, and were regularly organised as Roman provinces."

H. F. Pelham, Outlines of Roman History, book 3, chapter 1.

See, also, CARTHAGE: B. C. 146.

ROME: B. C. 146. Supremacy of the Senate.

"At the close of a century first of deadly struggle and then of rapid and dazzling success, Rome found herself the supreme power in the civilised world. … We have now to consider how this period of conflict and conquest had affected the victorious state. Outwardly the constitution underwent but little change. It continued to be in form a moderate democracy. The sovereignty of the people finally established by the Hortensian law remained untouched in theory. It was by the people in assembly that the magistrates of the year were elected, and that laws were passed; only by 'order of the people' could capital punishment be inflicted upon a Roman citizen. For election to a magistracy, or for a seat in the senate, patrician and plebeian were equally eligible. But between the theory and the practice of the constitution there was a wide difference. Throughout this period the actually sovereign authority in Rome was that of the senate, and behind the senate stood an order of nobles (nobiles), who claimed and enjoyed privileges as wide as those which immemorial custom had formerly conceded to the patriciate. The ascendency of the senate, which thus arrested the march of democracy in Rome, was not, to any appreciable extent, the result of legislation. It was the direct outcome of the practical necessities of the time, and when these no longer existed, it was at once and successfully challenged in the name and on the behalf of the constitutional rights of the people. Nevertheless, from the commencement of the Punic wars down to the moment when with the destruction of Carthage in 146 B. C. Rome's only rival disappeared, this ascendency was complete and almost unquestioned. It was within the walls of the senate-house, and by decrees of the senate, that the foreign and the domestic policy of the state were alike determined. … Though the ascendency of the senate was mainly due to the fact that without it the government of the state could scarcely have been carried on, it was strengthened and confirmed by the close and intimate connection which existed between the senate and the nobility. This 'nobility' was in its nature and origin widely different from the old patriciate. {2681} Though every patrician was of course 'noble,' the majority of the families which in this period styled themselves noble were not patrician but plebeian, and the typical nobles of the time of the elder Cato, of the Gracchi, or of Cicero, the Metelli, Livii, or Licinii were plebeians. The title nobilis was apparently conceded by custom to those plebeian families one or more of whose members had, after the opening of the magistracies, been elected to a curule office, and which in consequence were entitled to place in their halls, and to display at their funeral processions the 'imagines' of these distinguished ancestors. The man who, by his election to a curule office thus ennobled his descendants, was said to be the 'founder of his family,' though himself only a new man. … Office brought wealth and prestige, and both wealth and prestige were freely employed to exclude 'new men' and to secure for the 'noble families' a monopoly of office. The ennobled plebeians not only united with the patricians to form a distinct order, but outdid them in pride and arrogance. … The establishment of senatorial ascendency was not the only result of this period of growth and expansion. During the same time the foundations were laid of the provincial system, and with this of the new and dangerous powers of the proconsuls."

H. F. Pelham, Outlines of Roman History, book 3, chapter 3.

"The great struggle against Hannibal left the Senate the all but undisputed government of Rome. Originally a mere consulting board, assessors of the king or consul, the Senate had become the supreme executive body. That the government solely by the comitia and the magistrates should by experience be found wanting was as inevitable at Rome as at Athens. Rome was more fortunate than Athens in that she could develop a new organism to meet the need. The growth of the power of the Senate was all the more natural and legitimate the less it possessed strict legal standing-ground. But the fatal dualism thus introduced into the constitution—the Assembly governing de jure, and the Senate governing de facto—made all government after a time impossible. The position of the Senate being, strictly speaking, an unconstitutional one, it was open to any demagogue to bring matters of foreign policy or administration before an Assembly which was without continuity, without special knowledge, and in which there was no debate. Now, if the Senate governed badly, the Assembly 'could not govern at all;' and there could be, in the long run, but one end to the constant struggle between the two sources of authority."

_W. T. Arnold, The Roman System of Provincial Administration, chapter 2. _

See, also, SENATE, ROMAN.

ROME: B. C. 133-121. The attempted reforms of the Gracchi.

"The first systematic attack upon the senatorial government is connected with the names of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, and its immediate occasion was an attempt to deal with no less a danger than the threatened disappearance of the class to which of all others Rome had owed most in the past. For, while Rome had been extending her sway westward and eastward, and while her nobles and merchants were amassing colossal fortunes abroad, the small landholders throughout the greater part of Italy were sinking deeper into ruin under the pressure of accumulated difficulties. The Hannibalic war had laid waste their fields and thinned their numbers, nor when peace returned to Italy did it bring with it any revival of prosperity. The heavy burden of military service still pressed ruinously upon them, and in addition they were called upon to compete with the foreign corn imported from beyond the sea, and with the foreign slave-labour purchased by the capital of the wealthier men. … The small holders went off to follow the eagles or swell the proletariate of the cities, and their holdings were left to run waste or merged in the vineyards, oliveyards, and above all in the great cattle-farms of the rich, while their own place was taken by slaves. The evil was not equally serious in all parts of Italy. It was least felt in the central highlands, in Campania, and in the newly settled fertile valley of the Po. It was worst in Etruria and in southern Italy; but everywhere it was serious enough to demand the earnest attention of Roman statesmen. Of its existence the government had received plenty of warning in the declining numbers of able-bodied males returned at the census, in the increasing difficulties of recruiting for the legions, in servile out-breaks in Etruria and Apulia."

H. F. Pelham, Outlines of Roman History, book 4, chapter 1.

The earlier agrarian laws which the Roman plebeians had wrung from the patricians (the Licinian Law and similar ones—see ROME: B. C. 376-367; also AGRARIAN LAWS) had not availed to prevent the absorption, by one means and another, of the public domain—the "ager publicus," the conquered land which the state had neither sold nor given away—into the possession of great families and capitalists, who held it in vast blocks, to be cultivated by slaves. Time had almost sanctioned this condition of things, when Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, elder of the two famous brothers called "The Gracchi," undertook in 133 B. C. a reformation of it. As one of the tribunes of the people that year, he brought forward a law which was intended to enforce the provisions of the Licinian Law of 367 B. C., by taking away from the holders of public land what they held in excess of 500 jugera (about 320 acres) each. Three commissioners, called Triumviri, were to be appointed to superintend the execution of the law and to redistribute the land recovered, among needy citizens. Naturally the proposal of this act aroused a fierce opposition in the wealthy class whose ill-gotten estates were threatened by it. One of the fellow-tribunes of Tiberius was gained over by the opposition and used the power of his veto to prevent the taking of a vote upon the bill. Then Gracchus, to overcome the obstacle, had recourse to an unconstitutional measure. The obstinate tribune was deposed from his office by a vote of the people, and the law was then enacted. For the carrying out of his measure, and for his own protection, no less, Tiberius sought a re-election to the tribunate, which was contrary to usage, if not against positive law. His enemies raised a tumult against him on the day of election and he was slain, with three hundred of his party, and their corpses were flung into the Tiber. Nine years later, his younger brother, Caius Gracchus, obtained election to the tribune's office and took up the work of democratic political reform which Tiberius had sacrificed his life in attempting. His measures were radical, attacking the powers and privileges of the ruling orders. But mixed with them were schemes of demagoguery which did infinite mischief to the Roman people and state. {2682} He carried the first frumentarian law (lex frumentaria) as it was called, by which corn was bought with public money, and stored, for sale to Roman citizens at a nominal price. After three years of power, through the favor of the people, he, too, in 121 B. C. was deserted by them and the party of the patricians was permitted to put him to death, with a great number of his supporters.

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 1, chapters 10-13, 18-19.

"Caius, it is said, was the first Roman statesman who appointed a regular distribution of corn among the poorer citizens, requiring the state to buy up large consignments of grain from the provinces, and to sell it again at a fixed rate below the natural price. The nobles themselves seem to have acquiesced without alarm in this measure, by which they hoped to secure the city from seditious movements in time of scarcity; but they failed to foresee the discouragement it would give to industry, the crowds of idle and dissipated citizens it would entice into the forum, the appetite it would create for shows, entertainments and largesses, and the power it would thus throw into the hands of unprincipled demagogues. Caius next established customs duties upon various articles of luxury imported into the city for the use of the rich: he decreed the gratuitous supply of clothing to the soldiers, who had hitherto been required to provide themselves out of their pay; he founded colonies for the immediate gratification of the poorer citizens, who were waiting in vain for the promised distribution of lands: he caused the construction of public granaries, bridges and roads, to furnish objects of useful labour to those who were not unwilling to work. Caius himself, it is said, directed the course and superintended the making of the roads, some of which we may still trace traversing Italy in straight lines from point to point, filling up depressions and hollowing excrescences in the face of the country, and built upon huge substructions of solid masonry. Those who most feared and hated him confessed their amazement at the magnificence of his projects and the energy of his proceedings; the people, in whose interests he toiled, were filled with admiration and delight, when they saw him attended from morning to night by crowds of contractors, artificers, ambassadors, magistrates, soldiers, and men of learning, to all of whom he was easy of access, adapting his behaviour to the condition of each in turn: thus proving, as they declared, the falsehood of those who presumed to call him violent and tyrannical. … By these innovations Caius laid a wide basis of popularity. Thereupon he commenced his meditated attack upon the privileged classes. We possess at least one obscure intimation of a change he effected or proposed in the manner of voting by centuries, which struck at the influence of the wealthier classes. He confirmed and extended the Porcian law, for the protection of citizens against the aggression of the magistrates without a formal appeal to the people. Even the powers of the dictatorship, to which the senate had been wont to resort for the coercion of its refractory opponents, were crippled by these provisions; and we shall see that no recourse was again had to this extraordinary and odious appointment till the oligarchy had gained for a time a complete victory over their adversaries. Another change, even more important, was that by which the knights were admitted to the greater share, if not, as some suppose, to the whole, of the judicial appointments. … As long as the senators were the judges, the provincial governors, who were themselves senators, were secure from the consequence of impeachment. If the knights were to fill the same office, it might be expected that the publicani, the farmers of the revenues abroad would be not less assured of impunity, whatever were the enormity of their exactions. … It was vain, indeed, to expect greater purity from the second order of citizens than from the first. If the senators openly denied justice to complainants, the knights almost as openly sold it. This was in itself a grievous degradation of the tone of public morality; but this was not all the evil of the tribune's reform. It arrayed the two privileged classes of citizens in direct hostility to one another. 'Caius made the republic double-headed,' was the profound remark of antiquity. He sowed the seeds of a war of an hundred years. Tiberius had attempted to raise up a class of small proprietors, who, by the simplicity of their manners and moderation of their tastes, might form, as he hoped, a strong conservative barrier between the tyranny of the nobles and the envy of the people; but Caius, on the failure of this attempt, was content to elevate a class to power, who should touch upon both extremes of the social scale,—the rich by their wealth, and the poor by their origin. Unfortunately this was to create not a new class, but a new party. … One direct advantage, at all events, Caius expected to derive, besides the humiliation of his brother's murderers, from this elevation of the knights: he hoped to secure their grateful co-operation towards the important object he next had in view: this was no less than the full admission of the Latins and Italians to the right of suffrage."

C. Merivale, The Fall of the Roman Republic, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: _Plutarch, Tiberius Gracchus; Caius Gracchus._

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 4, chapters 2-3 (volume 3).

S. Eliot, Liberty of Rome: Rome, book 3, chapter 1.

See, also, AGER PUBLICUS.

ROME: B. C. 125-121. Conquest of the Salyes and Allobroges in Gaul. Treaty of friendship with the Ædui.

See SALYES; ALLOBROGES; and ÆDUI.

ROME: B. C. 118-99. Increasing corruption of government. The Jugurthine War. Invasion and defeat of the Cimbri and Teutones. The power of Marius.

"After the death of Caius Gracchus, the nobles did what they pleased in Rome. They paid no more attention to the Agrarian Law, and the state of Italy grew worse and worse. … The nobles cared nothing for Rome's honour, but only for their own pockets. They governed badly, and took bribes from foreign kings, who were allowed to do what they liked if they could pay enough. This was especially seen in a war that took place in Africa. After Carthage had been destroyed, the greatest state in Africa was Numidia. The king of Numidia was a friend of the Roman people, and had fought with them against Carthage. So Rome had a good deal to do with Numidia, and the Numidians often helped Rome in her wars. In 118 a king of Numidia died, and left the kingdom to his two sons and an adopted son named Jugurtha. Jugurtha determined to have the kingdom all to himself, so he murdered one of the sons and made war upon the other, who applied to Rome for help.

See NUMIDIA: B. C. 118-104.

{2683}

The Senate was bribed by Jugurtha, and did all it could to please him; at last, however, Jugurtha besieged his brother in Cirta, and when he took the city put him and all his army to death (112). After this the Romans thought they must interfere, but the Senate for more money were willing to let Jugurtha off very easily. He came to Rome to excuse himself before the people, and whilst he was there he had a Numidian prince, of whom he was afraid, murdered in Rome itself. But his bribes were stronger than the laws. … The Romans declared war against Jugurtha, but he bribed the generals, and for three years very little was done against him. At last, in 108, a good general, who would not take bribes, Quintus Metellus, went against him and defeated him. Metellus would have finished the war, but in 106 the command was taken from him by Caius Marius the consul. This Caius Marius was a man of low birth, but a good soldier. He had risen in war by his bravery, and had held magistracies in Rome. He was an officer in the army of Metellus, and was very much liked by the common soldiers, for he was a rough man like themselves, and talked with them, and lived as they did. … Marius left Africa and went to Rome to try and be made consul in 106. He found fault with Metellus before the people, and said that he could carry on the war better himself. So the people made him consul, and more than that, they said that he should be general in Africa instead of Metellus. … Marius finished the war in Africa, and brought Jugurtha in triumph to Italy in 104. … When it was over, Marius was the most powerful man in Rome. He was the leader of the popular party, and also the general of the army. The army had greatly changed since the time of Hannibal. The Roman soldiers were no longer citizens who fought when their country wanted them, and then went back to their work. But as wars were now constantly going on, and going on too in distant countries, this could no longer be the case, and the army was full of men who took to a soldier's life as a trade. Marius was the favourite of these soldiers: he was a soldier by trade himself, and had risen in consequence to power in the state. Notice, then, that when Marius was made consul, it was a sign that the government for the future was to be carried on by the army, as well as by the people and the nobles. Marius was soon wanted to carry on another war. Two great tribes of barbarians from the north had entered Gaul west of the Alps, and threatened to drive out the Romans, and even attack Italy. They came with their wives and children, like a wandering people looking for a home. … At first these Cimbri defeated the Roman generals in southern Gaul, where the Romans had conquered the country along the Rhone, and made it a province, which is still called the province, or Provence. The Romans, after this defeat, were afraid of another burning of their city by barbarians, so Marius was made consul again, and for the next five years he was elected again and again. … In the year 102 the Teutones and the Cimbri marched to attack Italy, but Marius defeated them in two great battles.

See CIMBRI AND TEUTONES: B. C. 113-102.

Afterwards when he went back to Rome in triumph he was so powerful that he could have done what he chose in the state. The people were very grateful to him, the soldiers were very fond of him, and the nobles were very much afraid of him. But Marius did not think much of the good of the state: he thought much more of his own greatness, and how he might become a still greater man. So, first, he joined the party of the people, and one of the tribunes. Lucius Appuleius Saturninus, brought forward some laws like those of Caius Gracchus, and Marius helped him. But there were riots in consequence, and the Senate begged Marius to help them in putting down the riots. For a time Marius doubted what to do, but at last he armed the people, and Saturninus was killed (99). But now neither side liked Marius, for he was true to neither, and did only what he thought would make himself most powerful. So for the future Marius was not likely to be of much use in the troubles of the Roman state."

M. Creighton. History of Rome (Primer). chapter 7.

ALSO IN: H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, chapters 54-56 (volume 2).

V. Duruy, History of Rome, chapters 39-41 (volume 2).

_Plutarch, Marius._

ROME: B. C. 90-88. Demands of the Italian Socii for Roman citizenship. The Marsian or Social War. Rise of Sulla.

"It is a most erroneous though widely prevalent opinion that the whole of Italy was conquered by the force of Roman arms, and joined to the empire [of the Republic] against its will. Roman valour and the admirable organization of the legions, it is true, contributed to extend the dominion of Rome, but they were not nearly so effective as the political wisdom of the Roman senate. … The subjects of Rome were called by the honourable name of allies (Socii). But the manner in which they had become allies was not always the same. It differed widely according to circumstances. Some had joined Rome on an equal footing by a free alliance ('fœdus æquum'). which implied nothing like subjection. … Others sought the alliance of Rome as a protection from pressing enemies or troublesome neighbours. … On the whole, the condition of the allies, Latin colonies as well as confederated Italians, seems to have been satisfactory, at least in the earlier period. … But even the right of self-government which Rome had left to the Italian communities proved an illusion in all cases where the interests of the ruling town seemed to require it. A law passed in Rome, nay, a simple senatorial decree, or a magisterial order, could at pleasure be applied to the whole of Italy. Roman law gradually took the place of local laws, though the Italians had no part in the legislation of the Roman people, or any influence on the decrees of the Roman senate and magistrates. … All public works in Italy, such as roads, aqueducts, and temples, were carried out solely for the benefit of Rome. … Not in peace only, but also in the time of war, the allies were gradually made to feel how heavily the hand of Rome weighed upon them. … In proportion as with the increase of their power the Romans felt more and more secure and independent of the allies, they showed them less consideration and tenderness, and made them feel that they had gradually sunk from their former position of friends to be no more than subjects." There was increasing discontent among the Italian allies, or Socii, with this state of things, especially after the time of the Gracchi, when a proposal to extend the Roman citizenship and franchise to them was strongly pressed. {2684} In the next generation after the murder of Caius Gracchus, there arose another political reformer, Marcus Livius Drusus, who likewise sought to have justice done to the Italians, by giving them a voice in the state which owed its conquests to their arms. He, too, was killed by the political enemies he provoked; and then the allies determined to enforce their claims by war. The tribes of the Sabellian race—Marsians, Samnites, Hirpenians, Lucanians, and their fellows—organized a league, with the town of Corfinium (its name changed to Italica) for its capital, and broke into open revolt. The prominence of the Marsians in the struggle caused the war which ensued to be sometimes called the Marsian War; it was also called the Italian War, but, more commonly, the Social War. It was opened, B. C. 90, by a horrible massacre of Roman citizens residing at Asculum, Picenum,—a tragedy for the guilt of which that town paid piteously the next year, when it was taken at the end of a long siege and after a great battle fought under its walls. But the Romans had suffered many defeats before that achievement was reached. At the end of the first year of the war they had made no headway against the revolt, and it is the opinion of Ihne and other historians that "Rome never was so near her destruction," and that "her downfall was averted, not by the heroism of her citizens, as in the war of Hannibal, but by a reversal" of her "policy of selfish exclusion and haughty disdain." A law called the Julian Law, because proposed by the consul L. Julius Cæsar, was adopted B. C. 90, which gave the Roman franchise to the Latins, and to all the other Italian communities which had so far remained faithful. Soon afterward two of the new tribunes carried a further measure, the Plautio-Papirian Law, which offered the same privilege to any Italian who, within two months, should present himself before a Roman magistrate to claim it. These concessions broke the spirit of the revolt and the Roman armies began to be victorious. Sulla, who was in the field, added greatly to his reputation by successes at Nola (where his army honored him by acclaim with the title of Imperator) and at Bovianum, which he took. The last important battle of the war was fought on the old blood-drenched plain of Cannæ, and this time the victory was for Rome. After that, for another year, some desperate towns and remnants of the revolted Socii held out, but their resistance was no more than the death throes of a lost cause.

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 6, chapter 9, with foot-note, and book 7, chapters 13-14.

ALSO IN: G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 2, chapters 15-16.

B. G. Niebuhr, Lectures on the History of Rome, lectures 83-84 (volume 2).

ROME: B. C. 88-78. Rivalry of Marius and Sulla. War with Mithridates. Civil war. Successive proscriptions and reigns of terror. Sulla's dictatorship.

The political diseases of which the Roman Republic was dying made quick progress in the generation that passed between the murder of Caius Gracchus and the Social War. The Roman rabble which was nominally sovereign and the oligarchy which ruled actually, by combined bribery and brow-beating of the populace, had both been worse corrupted and debased by the increasing flow of tribute and plunder from provinces and subject states. Rome had familiarized itself with mob violence, and the old respect for authority and for law was dead. The soldier with an army at his back need not stand any longer in awe of the fasces of a tribune or a consul. It was a natural consequence of that state of things that the two foremost soldiers of the time, Caius Marius and L. Cornelius Sulla (or Sylla, as often written,) should become the recognized chiefs of the two opposing factions of the day. Marius was old, his military glory was waning, he had enjoyed six consulships and coveted a seventh; Sulla was in the prime of life, just fairly beginning to show his surpassing capabilities and entering on his real career. Marius was a plebeian of plebeians and rude in all his tastes; Sulla came from the great Cornelian gens, and refined a little the dissoluteness of his life by studies of Greek letters and philosophy. Marius was sullenly jealous; Sulla was resolutely ambitious. A new war, which promised great prizes to ambition and cupidity, alike, was breaking out in the east,—the war with Mithridates. Both Marius and Sulla aspired to the command in it; but Sulla had been elected one of the consuls for the year 88 B. C. and, by custom and law, would have the conduct of the war assigned to him. Marius, however, intrigued with the demagogues and leaders of the mob, and brought about a turbulent demonstration and popular vote, by which he could claim to be appointed to lead the forces of the state against Mithridates. Sulla fled to his army, in camp at Nola, and laid his case before the officers and men. The former, for the most part, shrank from opposing themselves to Rome; the latter had no scruples and demanded to be led against the Roman mob. Sulla took them at their word, and marched them straight to the city. For the first time in its history (by no means the last) the great capital was forcibly entered by one of its own armies. There was some resistance, but not much. Sulla paralyzed his opponents by his energy, and by a threat to burn the city if it did not submit. Marius and his chief partisans fled. Sulla contented himself with outlawing twelve, some of whom were taken and put to death. Marius, himself, escaped to Africa, after many strange adventures, in the story of which there is romance unquestionably mixed. Sulla (with his colleague in harmony with him) fulfilled the year of his consulate at Rome and then departed for Greece to conduct the war against Mithridates. In doing so, he certainly knew that he was giving up the government to his enemies; but he trusted his future in a remarkable way, and the necessity, for Rome, of confronting Mithridates was imperative. The departure of Sulla was the signal for fresh disorders at Rome. Cinna, one of the new consuls, was driven from the city, and became the head of a movement which appealed to the "new citizens," as they were called, or the "Italian party"—the allies who had been enfranchised as the result of the Social War. Marius came back from exile to join it. Sertorius and Carbo were other leaders who played important parts. Presently there were four armies beleaguering Rome, and after some unsuccessful resistance the gates were opened to them, by order of the Roman senate. Cinna, the consul, was nominally restored to authority, but Marius was really supreme, and Marius was implacable in his sullen rage. {2685} Rome was treated like a conquered city. The public and private enemies of Marius and of all who chose to call themselves Marians, were hunted down and slain. To stop the massacre, at last, Sertorius—the best of the new masters of Rome—was forced to turn his soldiers against the bands of the assassins and to slaughter several thousands of them. Then some degree of order was restored and there was the quiet in Rome of a city of the dead. The next year Marius realized his ambition for a seventh consulship, but died before the end of the first month of it. Meantime, Sulla devoted himself steadily to the war against Mithridates [see MITHRIDATIC WARS], watching from afar the sinister course of events at Rome, and making no sign. It was not until the spring of 83 B. C., four years after his departure from Italy and three years after the death of Marius, that he was ready to return and settle accounts with his enemies. On landing with his army in Italy he was joined speedily by Pompey, Crassus, and other important chiefs. Cinna had been killed by mutinous soldiers; Carbo and young Marius were the leaders of the "Italian party." There was a fierce battle at Sacriportus, near Præneste, with young Marius, and a second with Carbo at Clusium. Later, there was another furious fight with the Samnites, under the walls of Rome, at the Colline Gate, where 50,000 of the combatants fell. Then Sulla was master of Rome. Every one of his suspected friends in the senate had been butchered by the last orders of young Marius. His retaliation was not slow; but he pursued it with a horrible deliberation. He made lists, to be posted in public, of men who were marked for death and whom anybody might slay. There are differing accounts of the number doomed by this proscription; according to one annalist the death-roll was swelled to 4,700 before the reign of terror ceased. Sulla ruled as a conqueror until it pleased him to take an official title, when he commanded the people to elect him Dictator, for such term as he might judge to be fit. They obeyed. As Dictator, he proceeded to remodel the Roman constitution by a series of laws which were adopted at his command. One of these laws enfranchised 10,000 slaves and made them citizens. Another took a way from the tribunes a great part of their powers; allowed none but members of the senate to be candidates for the office, and no person once a tribune to hold a curule office. Others reconstructed the senate, adding 300 new members to its depleted ranks, and restored to it the judicial function which C. Gracchus had transferred to the knights; they also restored to it the initiative in legislation. Having remodeled the Roman government to his liking, Sulla astounded his friends and enemies by suddenly laying down his dictatorial powers and retiring to private life at his villa, near Puteoli, on the Bay of Naples. There he wrote his memoirs, which have been lost, and gave himself up to the life of pleasure which was even dearer to him than the life of power. But he enjoyed it scarcely a year, when he died, B. C. 78. His body, taken to Rome, was burned with pomp.

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 2, chapters 17-29.

ALSO IN: W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 7, chapters 15-23.

_Plutarch, Marius and Sulla._

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 4, chapters 9-10.

C. Merivale, The Fall of the Roman Republic, chapters 4-5.

ROME: B. C. 80. The throne of Egypt bequeathed to the Republic by Ptolemy Alexander.

See EGYPT: B. C. 80-48.

ROME: B. C. 78-68. Danger from the legionaries. Rising power of Pompeius. Attempt of Lepidus. Pompeius against Sertorius in Spain. Insurrection of Spartacus and the Gladiators. The second Mithridatic War, and war in Armenia.

"The Roman legionary, … drawn from the dregs of the populace, and quartered through the best years of his life in Greece and Asia, in Spain and Gaul, lived solely upon his pay, enhanced by extortion or plunder. His thirst of rapine grew upon him. He required his chiefs to indulge him with the spoil of cities and provinces; and when a foreign enemy was not at hand, he was tempted to turn against the subjects of the state, or, if need be, against the state itself. … Marius and Sulla, Cinna and Carbo had led the forces of Rome against Rome herself. … The problem which thus presented itself to the minds of patriots—how, namely, to avert the impending dissolution of their polity under the blows of their own defenders—was indeed an anxious and might well appear a hopeless one. It was to the legions only that they could trust, and the legions were notoriously devoted to their chiefs. … The triumph of Sulla had been secured by the accession to his side of Pompeius Strabo, the commander of a large force quartered in Italy. These troops had transferred their obedience to a younger Pompeius, the son of their late leader. Under his auspices they had gained many victories; they had put down the Marian faction, headed by Carbo, in Sicily, and had finally secured the ascendency of the senate on the shores of Africa. Sulla had evinced some jealousy of their captain, who was young in years, and as yet had not risen above the rank of Eques; but when Pompeius led his victorious legions back to Italy, the people rose in the greatest enthusiasm to welcome him, and the dictator, yielding to their impetuosity, had granted him a triumph and hailed him with the title of 'Magnus.' Young as he was, he became at once, on the abdication of Sulla, the greatest power in the commonwealth. This he soon caused to be known and felt. The lead of the senatorial party had now fallen to Q. Lutatius Catulus and M. Æmilius Lepidus, the heads of two of the oldest and noblest families of Rome. The election of these chiefs to the consulship for the year 676 of the city (B. C. 78) seemed to secure for the time the ascendency of the nobles, and the maintenance of Sulla's oligarchical constitution bequeathed to their care. … But there were divisions within the party itself which seemed to seize the opportunity for breaking forth. Lepidus was inflamed with ambition to create a faction of his own, and imitate the career of the usurpers before him. … But he had miscalculated his strength. Pompeius disavowed him, and lent the weight of his popularity and power to the support of Catulus; and the senate hoped to avert an outbreak by engaging both the consuls by an oath to abstain from assailing each other. During the remainder of his term of office Lepidus refrained from action; but as soon as he reached his province, the Narbonensis in Gaul, he developed his plans, summoned to his standard the Marians, who had taken refuge in great numbers in that region, and invoked the aid of the Italians, with the promise of restoring to them the lands of which they had been dispossessed by Sulla's veterans. {2686} With the aid of M. Junius Brutus, who commanded in the Cisalpine, he made an inroad into Etruria, and called upon the remnant of its people, who had been decimated by Sulla, to rise against the faction of their oppressors. The senate, now thoroughly alarmed, charged Catulus with its defence; the veterans, restless and dissatisfied with their fields and farms, crowded to the standard of Pompeius. Two Roman armies met near the Milvian bridge, a few miles to the north of the city, and Lepidus received a check, which was again and again repeated, till he was driven to flee into Sardinia, and there perished shortly afterwards of fever. Pompeius pursued Brutus into the Cisalpine. … The remnant of [Lepidus'] troops was carried over to Spain by Perperna, and there swelled the forces of an abler leader of the same party, Q. Sertorius." Sertorius had established himself strongly in Spain, and aspired to the founding of an independent state; but after a prolonged struggle he was overcome by Pompeius and assassinated by traitors in his own ranks.

See SPAIN: B. C. 83-72.

"Pompeius had thus recovered a great province for the republic at the moment when it seemed on the point of being lost through the inefficiency of one of the senatorial chiefs. Another leader of the dominant party was about to yield him another victory. A war was raging in the heart of Italy. A body of gladiators had broken away from their confinement at Capua under the lead of Spartacus, a Thracian captive, had seized a large quantity of arms, and had made themselves a retreat or place of defence in the crater of Mount Vesuvius. …

See SPARTACUS, THE RISING OF.

The consuls were directed to lead the legions against them, but were ignominiously defeated [B. C. 72]. In the absence of Pompeius in Spain and of Lucullus in the East, M. Crassus was the most prominent among the chiefs of the party in power. This illustrious noble was a man of great influence, acquired more by his wealth, for which he obtained the surname of Dives, than for any marked ability in the field or in the forum; but he had a large following of clients and dependents, who … now swelled the cry for placing a powerful force under his orders, and entrusting to his hands the deliverance of Italy. The brigands themselves were becoming demoralized by lack of discipline. Crassus drove them before him to the extremity of the peninsula. … Spartacus could only save a remnant of them by furiously breaking through the lines of his assailants. This brave gladiator was still formidable, and it was feared that Rome itself might be exposed to his desperate attack. The senate sent importunate messages to recall both Pompeius and Lucullus to its defence. … Spartacus had now become an easy prey, and the laurels were quickly won with which Pompeius was honoured by his partial countrymen. Crassus was deeply mortified, and the senate itself might feel some alarm at the redoubled triumphs of a champion of whose loyalty it was not secure. But the senatorial party had yet another leader, and a man of more ability than Crassus, at the head of another army. The authority of Pompeius in the western provinces was balanced in the East by that of L. Licinius Lucullus, who commanded the forces of the republic in the struggle which she was still maintaining against Mithridates. … The military successes of Lucullus fully justified the choice of the government." He expelled Mithridates from all the dominions which he claimed and drove him to take refuge with the king of Armenia. "The kingdom of Armenia under Tigranes III. was at the height of its power when Clodius, the brother-in-law of Lucullus, then serving under him, was despatched to the royal residence at Tigranocerta to demand the surrender of Mithridates. … The capital of Armenia was well defended by its position among the mountains and the length and severity of its winter season. It was necessary to strike once for all [B. C. 61)]. Lucullus had a small but well-trained and well-appointed army of veterans. Tigranes surrounded and encumbered himself with a vast cloud of undisciplined barbarians, the flower of whom, consisting of 17,000 mailed cavalry, however formidable in appearance, made but a feeble resistance to the dint of the Roman spear and broadsword. When their ranks were broken they fell back upon the inert masses behind them, and threw them into hopeless confusion. Tigranes made his escape with dastardly precipitation. A bloody massacre ensued. … In the following year Lucullus advanced his posts still further eastward. … But a spirit of discontent or lassitude had crept over his own soldiers. … He was constrained to withdraw from the siege of Artaxata, the furthest stronghold of Tigranes, on the banks of the Araxes, and after crowning his victories with a successful assault upon Nisibis, he gave the signal for retreat, leaving the destruction of Mithridates still unaccomplished. Meanwhile the brave proconsul's enemies were making head against him at Rome."

C. Merivale, The Roman Triumvirates, chapter 1.

Lucullus "wished to consummate the ruin of Tigranes, and afterwards to carry his arms to Parthia. He had not this perilous glory. Hitherto, his principal means of success had been to conciliate the people, by restraining the avidity both of his soldiers and of the Italian publicans. The first refused to pursue a war which only enriched the general; the second wrote to Rome, where the party of knights was every day regaining its ancient ascendancy. They accused of rapacity him who had repressed theirs. All were inclined to believe, in short, that Lucullus had drawn enormous sums from the towns which he preserved from the soldiers and publicans. They obtained the appointment of a successor, and by this change the fruit of this conquest was in a great measure lost. Even before Lucullus had quitted Asia, Mithridates re-entered Pontus, invaded Cappadocia, and leagued himself more closely with the pirates."

J. Michelet, History of the Roman Republic, page 308.

"It was imagined at Rome that Mithridates was as good as conquered, and that a new province of Bithynia and Pontus was awaiting organisation. … Ten commissioners as usual had been despatched to assist. … Lucullus had hoped before their arrival to strike some blow to recover his losses; but Marcius Rex had refused his appeal for help from Cilicia, and his own troops had … declined to march … when they learnt that the command was about to pass from Lucullus to Glabrio."

E. S. Shuckburgh, History of Rome to the Battle of Actium, page 677.

ALSO IN: _Plutarch, Pompeius Magnus._

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 2, chapters 30-33, and volume 3, chapters 1-5.

G. Rawlinson, Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 10.

{2687}

ROME: B. C. 69-63. The drift towards revolution. Pompeius in the East. His extraordinary commission. His enlargement of the Roman dominions. His power. Ambitions and projects of Cæsar. Consulship of Cicero.

"To a superficial observer, at the close of the year 70 B. C., it might possibly have seemed that the Republic had been given a new lease of life. … And, indeed, for two or three years this promising condition of things continued. The years 69 and 68 B. C. must have been tolerably quiet ones, for our authorities have very little to tell us of them. … Had a single real statesman appeared on the scene at this moment, or even if the average senator or citizen had been possessed of some honesty and insight, it was not impossible that the government might have been carried on fairly well even under republican forms. But there was no leading statesman of a character suited to raise the whole tone of politics; and there was no general disposition on the part of either Senate or people to make the best of the lull in the storm, to repair damages, or to set the ship on her only true course. So the next few years show her fast drifting in the direction of revolution; and the current that bore her was not a local one, or visible to the eye of the ordinary Roman, but one of world-wide force, whose origin and direction could only be perceived by the highest political intelligence. It was during these years that Cæsar was quietly learning the business of government, both at home and in the provinces. … Cæsar was elected quæstor in 69 B. C., and served the office in the following year. It fell to him to begin his acquaintance with government in the province of Further Spain, and thus began his lifelong connection with the peoples of the West. … On his return to Rome, which must have taken place about the beginning of 67 B. C., Cæsar was drawn at once into closer connection with the man who, during the next twenty years, was to be his friend, his rival, and his enemy. Pompeius was by this time tired of a quiet life. … Both to him and his friends, it seemed impossible to be idle any longer. There was real and abundant reason for the employment of the ablest soldier of the day. The audacity of the pirates was greater than ever.

See CILICIA, PIRATES OF.

Lucullus, too, in Asia, had begun to meet with disasters, and was unable, with his troops in a mutinous temper, to cope with the combined forces of the kings of Armenia and Pontus. … In this year, 67 B. C., a bill was proposed by a tribune, Gabinius, in the assembly of the plebs, in spite of opposition in the Senate, giving Pompeius exactly that extensive power against the pirates which he himself desired, and which was really necessary if the work was to be done swiftly and completely. He was to have exclusive command for three years over the whole Mediterranean, and over the resources of the provinces and dependent states. For fifty miles inland in every province bordering on these seas—i. e., in the whole Empire—he was to exercise an authority equal to that of the existing provincial governor. He was to have almost unlimited means of raising both fleets and armies, and was to nominate his own staff of twenty·five 'legati' (lieutenant-generals), who were all to have the rank of prætor. Nor was this all; for it was quite understood that this was only part of a plan which was to place him at the head of the armies in Asia Minor, superseding the able but now discredited Lucullus. In fact, by another law of Gabinius, Lucullus was recalled, and his command given to one of the consuls of the year, neither of whom, as was well known, was likely to wield it with the requisite ability. whichever consul it might be, he would only be recognised as keeping the place warm for Pompeius. … Pompeius left Rome in the spring of 67 B. C., rapidly cleared the seas of piracy, and in the following year superseded Lucullus in the command of the war against Mithridates [with the powers given him by the Gabinian Law prolonged and extended by another, known as the Manilian Law]. He did not return till the beginning of 61 B. C. At first sight it might seem as though his absence should have cleared the air, and left the political leaders at Rome a freer hand. But the power and the resources voted him, and the unprecedented success with which he used them, made him in reality as formidable to the parties at home as he was to the peoples of the East. He put an end at last to the power of Mithridates, received the submission of Tigranes of Armenia, and added to the Roman dominion the greater part of the possessions of both these kings. The sphere of Roman influence now for the first time reached the river Euphrates, and the Empire was brought into contact with the great Parthian kingdom beyond it. Asia Minor became wholly Roman, with the exception of some part of the interior, which obedient kinglets were allowed to retain. Syria was made a Roman province. Pompeius took Jerusalem, and added Judæa to Syria. …

See JEWS: B. C. 166-40].

The man to whom all this was due became at once the leading figure in the world. It became clear that when his career of conquest was over yet another task would devolve on him, if he chose to accept it—the re-organisation of the central government at Rome. … His gathered power overhung the state like an avalanche ready to fall; and in the possible path of an avalanche it is waste of time and labour to build any solid work. So these years, for Cæsar as for the rest, are years of plotting and intrigue on one side, and of half-hearted government on the other. … He was elected to the curule-ædileship—the next above the quæstorship in the series of magistracies—and entered on his office on January 1, 65 B. C. … Cæsar's political connection with Crassus at this time is by no means clear. The two were sailing the same course, and watching Pompeius with the same anxiety; but there could not have been much in common between them, and they were in fact rapidly getting in each other's way. The great money-lender, however, must have been in the main responsible for the enormous expenditure which Cæsar risked in this ædileship and the next three years. … At the close of the year 64 B. C., on the accession to office of a new board of tribunes, … an agrarian bill on a vast scale was promulgated by the tribune Servilius Rullus. {2688} The two most startling features of this were: first, the creation of a board of ten to carry out its provisions, each member of which was to be invested with military and judicial powers like those of the consuls and prætors; and secondly, the clauses which entrusted this board with enormous financial resources, to be raised by the public sale of all the territories and property acquired since the year 88 B. C., together with the booty and revenues now in the hands of Pompeius. The bill included, as its immediate object, a huge scheme of colonisation for Italy, on the lines of the Gracchan agrarian bills. … But it was really an attack on the weak fortress of senatorial government, in order to turn out its garrison, and occupy and fortify it in the name of the democratic or Marian party, against the return of the new Sulla, which was now thought to be imminent. The bill may also have had another and secondary object—namely, to force the hand of the able and ambitious consul [Cicero] who would come into office on January 1, 63; at any rate it succeeded in doing this, though it succeeded in nothing else. Cicero's great talents, and the courage and skill with which he had so far for the most part used them, had made him already a considerable power in Rome; but no one knew for certain to which party he would finally attach himself. … On the very first day of his office he attacked the bill in the Senate and exposed its real intention, and showed plainly that his policy was to convert Pompeius into a pillar of the constitution, and to counteract all democratic plots directed against him. … Whether it was his eloquence, or the people's indifference, that caused the bill to be dropped, can only be matter of conjecture; but it was withdrawn at once by its proposer, and the whole scheme fell through. This was Cicero's first and only real victory over Cæsar. … It was about this time, in the spring of 63 B. C., that the office of Pontifex Maximus became vacant by the death of old Metellus Pius, and Cæsar at once took steps to secure it for himself. The chances in his favour were small, but the prize was a tempting one. Success would place him at the head of the whole Roman religious system. … He was eligible, for he had already been for several years one of the college of pontifices, but as the law of election stood, a man so young and so democratic would have no chance against candidates like the venerable conservative leader Catulus, and Cæsar's own old commander in the East, Servilius Isauricus, both of whom were standing. Sulla's law, which placed the election in the hands of the college itself—a law framed expressly to exclude persons of Cæsar's stamp—must be repealed, and the choice vested once more in the people. The useful tribune Labienus was again set to work, the law was passed, and on March 6th Cæsar was elected by a large majority. … The latter part of this memorable year was occupied with a last and desperate attempt of the democratic party to possess themselves of the state power while there was yet time to forestall Pompeius. This is the famous conspiracy of Catilina; it was an attack of the left wing on the senatorial position, and the real leaders of the democracy took no open or active part in it."

W. W. Fowler, Julius Cæsar, chapters 4-5.

ALSO IN J. A. Froude, Cæsar, chapter 10.

Suetonius, Lives of the Twelve Cæsars: Julius, sections 7-13.

C. Middleton, Life of Cicero, section 2.

ROME: B. C. 63. The conspiracy of Catiline.

The conspiracy organized against the senatorial government of Rome by L. Sergius Catilina, B. C. 63, owes much of its prominence in Roman history to the preservation of the great speeches in which Cicero exposed it, and by which he rallied the Roman people to support him in putting it down. Cicero was consul that year, and the official responsibility of the government was on his shoulders. The central conspirators were a desperate, disreputable clique of men, who had everything to gain and nothing to lose by revolution. Behind them were all the discontents and malignant tempers of demoralized and disorganized Rome; and still behind these were suspected to be, darkly hidden, the secret intrigues of men like Cæsar and Crassus, who watched and waited for the expiring breath of the dying republic. Cicero, having made a timely discovery of the plot, managed the disclosure of it with great adroitness and won the support of the people to his proceedings against the conspirators. Catiline made his escape from Rome and placed himself' at the head of a small army which his supporters had raised in Etruria; but he and it were both destroyed in the single battle fought. Five of his fellow-conspirators were hastily put to death without trial, by being strangled in the Tullianum.

W. Forsyth, Life of Cicero, chapter 8.

ALSO IN A. Trollope, Life of c, chapter 9.

A. J. Church, Roman Life in the Days of Cicero, chapter 7.

Cicero, Orations (translated by (J. D. Yonge), volume 2.

ROME: B. C. 63-58. Increasing disorders in the capital. The wasted opportunities of Pompeius. His alliance with Cæsar and Crassus. The First Triumvirate. Cæsar's consulship. His appointment to the command in Cisalpine Gaul. Exile of Cicero.

"Recent events had fully demonstrated the impotence of both the Senate and the democratic party; neither was strong enough to defeat the other or to govern the State. There was no third party—no class remaining out of which a government might be erected; the only alternative was monarchy—the rule of a single person. Who the monarch would be was still uncertain; though, at the present moment, Pompeius was clearly the only man in whose power it lay to take up the crown that offered itself. … For the moment the question which agitated all minds was whether Pompeius would accept the gift offered him by fortune, or would retire and leave the throne vacant. … In the autumn of 63 B. C. Quintus Metellus Nepos arrived in the capital from the camp of Pompeius, and got himself elected tribune with the avowed purpose of procuring for Pompeius the command against Catilina by special decree, and afterwards the consulship for 61 B. C. … The aristocracy at once showed their hostility to the proposals of Metellus, and Cato had himself elected tribune expressly for the purpose of thwarting him. But the democrats were more pliant, and it was soon evident that they had come to a cordial understanding with the general's emissary. Metellus and his master both adopted the democratic view of the illegal executions [of the Catilinarians]; and the first act of Cæsar's prætorship was to call Catulus to account for the moneys alleged to have been embezzled by him in rebuilding the Capitoline temple and to transfer the superintendence of the works to Pompeius. … On the day of voting, Cato and another of the tribunes put their veto upon the proposals of Metellus, who disregarded it. {2689} There were conflicts of the armed bands of both sides, which terminated in favour of the government. The Senate followed up the victory by suspending Metellus and Cæsar from their offices. Metellus immediately departed for the camp of Pompeius; and when Cæsar disregarded the decree of suspension against himself, the Senate had ultimately to revoke it. Nothing could have been more favourable to the interests of Pompeius than these late events. After the illegal executions of the Catilinarians, and the acts of violence against Metellus, he 'could appear at once as the defender of the two palladia of Roman liberty'—the right of appeal, and the inviolability of the tribunate,—and as the champion of the party of order against the Catilinarian band. But his courage was unequal to the emergency; he lingered in Asia during the winter of 63-62 B. C., and thus gave the Senate time to crush the insurrection in Italy, and deprived himself of a valid pretext for keeping his legions together. In the autumn of 62 B. C. he landed at Brundisium, and, disbanding his army, proceeded to Rome with a small escort. On his arrival in the city in 61 B. C. he found himself in a position of complete isolation; he was feared by the democrats, hated by the aristocracy, and distrusted by the wealthy class. He at once demanded for himself a second consulship, the confirmation of all his acts in the East, and the fulfilment of the promise he had made to his soldiers to furnish them with lands. But each of these demands was met with the most determined opposition. … His promise of lands to his soldiers was indeed ratified, but not executed, and no steps were taken to provide the necessary funds and lands. … From this disagreeable position, Pompeius was rescued by the sagacity and address of Cæsar, who saw in the necessities of Pompeius the opportunity of the democratic party. Ever since the return of Pompeius, Cæsar had grown rapidly in influence and weight. He had been prætor in 62 B. C., and, in 61, governor in Farther Spain, where he utilized his position to free himself from his debts, and to lay the foundation of the military position he desired for himself. Returning in 60 B. C., he readily relinquished his claim to a triumph, in order to enter the city in time to stand for the consulship. … It was quite possible that the aristocracy might be strong enough to defeat the candidature of Cæsar, as it had defeated that of Catilina; and again, the consulship was not enough; an extraordinary command, secured to him for several years, was necessary for the fulfilment of his purpose. Without allies such a command could not be hoped for; and allies were found where they had been found ten years before, in Pompeius and Crassus, and in the rich equestrian class. Such a treaty was suicide on the part of Pompeius; … but he had drifted into a situation so awkward that he was glad to be released from it on any terms. … The bargain was struck in the summer of 60 B. C. [forming what became known in Roman history as the First Triumvirate]. Cæsar was promised the consulship and a governorship afterwards; Pompeius, the ratification of his arrangements in the East, and land for his soldiers; Crassus received no definite equivalent, but the capitalists were promised a remission of part of the money they had undertaken to pay for the lease of the Asiatic taxes. … Cæsar was easily elected consul for 59 B. C. All that the exertions of the Senate could do was to give him an aristocratic colleague in Marcus Bibulus. Cæsar at once proceeded to fulfil his obligations to Pompeius by proposing an agrarian law. All remaining Italian domain land, which meant practically the territory of Capua, was to be given up to allotments, and other estates in Italy were to be purchased out of the revenues of the new Eastern provinces. The soldiers were simply recommended to the commission, and thus the principle of giving rewards of land for military service was not asserted. The execution of the bill was to be entrusted to a commission of twenty. … At length all these proposals were passed by the assembly [after rejection by the Senate], and the commission of twenty, with Pompeius and Crassus at their head, began the execution of the agrarian law. Now that the first victory was won, the coalition was able to carry out the rest of its programme without much difficulty. … It was determined by the confederates that Cæsar should be invested by decree of the people with a special command resembling that lately held by Pompeius. Accordingly the tribune Vatinius submitted to the tribes a proposal which was at once adopted. By it Cæsar obtained the governorship of Cisalpine Gaul, and the supreme command of the three legions stationed there, for five years, with the rank of proprætor for his adjutants. His jurisdiction extended southwards as far as the Rubicon, and included Luca and Ravenna. Subsequently the province of Narbo was added by the Senate, on the motion of Pompeius. … Cæsar had hardly laid down his consulship when it was proposed, in the Senate, to annul the Julian laws. …

See JULIAN LAWS.

The regents determined to make examples of some of the most determined of their opponents." Cicero was accordingly sent into exile, by a resolution of the tribes, and Cato was appointed to an odious public mission, which carried him out of the way, to Cyprus.

T. Mommsen, History of the Roman Republic, (abridged by Bryan and Hendy), chapter 33.

ALSO IN G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 3, chapters 17-20.

C. Middleton, Life of Cicero, section 4.

Napoleon III., History of Julius Cæsar, chapters 3-4.

ROME: B. C. 58-51. Cæsar's conquest of Gaul.

See GAUL: B. C. 58-51.

ROME: B. C. 57-52. Effect of Cæsar's Gallic victories. Return of Cicero from exile. New arrangements of the Triumvirs. Cæsar's Proconsulship extended. The Trebonian Law. Disaster and death of Crassus at Carrhæ. Increasing anarchy in the city.

"In Rome the enemies of Cæsar … were awed into silence [by his victorious career in Gaul], and the Senate granted the unprecedented honour of fifteen days' 'supplicatio' to the gods for the brilliant successes in Gaul. Among the supporters of this motion was, as Cæsar learnt in the winter from the magistrates and senators who came to pay court to him at Ravenna, M. Tullius Cicero. From the day of his exile the efforts to secure his return had begun, but it was not until the 4th of August that the Senate, led by the consul, P. Lentulus Spinther, carried the motion for his return, in spite of the violence of the armed gang of Clodius, and summoned all the country tribes to crowd the comitia on Campus Martius, and ratify the senatus consultum. {2690} The return of the great orator to the country which he had saved in the terrible days of 63 B. C. was more like a triumph than the entrance of a pardoned criminal. … But he had come back on sufferance; the great Three must be conciliated. … Cicero, like many other optimates in Rome, was looking for the beginnings of a breach between Pompeius, Crassus and Cæsar, and was anxious to nourish any germs of opposition to the triple-headed monarchy. He pleaded against Cæsar's friend Vatinius, and he gave notice of a motion for checking the action of the agrarian law in Campania. But these signs of an independent opposition were suddenly terminated by a humiliating recantation; for before entering upon his third campaign Cæsar crossed the Apennines, and appeared at the Roman colony of Lucca. … Two hundred senators crowded to the rendezvous, but arrangements were made by the Three very independently of Senate in Rome or Senate in Lucca. It was agreed that Pompeius and Crassus should hold a joint consulship again next year, and before the expiration of Cæsar's five years they were to secure his reappointment for another five. … Unfortunate Cicero was awed, and in his other speeches of this year tried to win the favor of the great men by supporting their proposed provincial arrangements, and pleading in defence of Cæsar's friend and protege, L. Balbus." In the year 55 B. C. the Trebonian Law was passed, "which gave to Crassus and Pompeius, as proconsular provinces, Syria and Spain, for the extraordinary term of five years. In this repeated creation of extraordinary powers in favor of the coalition of dynasts, Cato rightly saw an end of republican institutions. … Crassus … started in 54 B. C., at the head of seven legions, in face of the combined opposition of tribunes and augurs, to secure the eastern frontier of Roman dominion by vanquishing the Parthian power, which, reared on the ruins of the kingdom of the Seleucids, was now supreme in Ctesiphon and Seleucia. Led into the desert by the Arab Sheikh Abgarus, acting as a traitor, the Roman army was surrounded by the fleet Parthian horsemen, who could attack and retreat, shooting their showers of missiles all the time. In the blinding sand and sun of the desert near Carrhæ [on the river Belik, one of the branches of the Euphrates, the supposed site of the Haran of Biblical history], Crassus experienced a defeat which took its rank with Cannæ and the Arausio. A few days afterwards (June 9th, 53 B. C.) he was murdered in a conference to which the commander of the Parthian forces invited him. … The shock of this event went through the Roman world, and though Cassius, the lieutenant of Crassus, retrieved the honour of the Roman arms against the Parthians in the following year, that agile people remained to the last unconquered, and the Roman boundary was never to advance further to the east. Crassus, then, was dead, and Pompeius, though he lent Cæsar a legion at the beginning of the year, was more ready to assume the natural antagonism to Cæsar, since the death of his wife Julia in September, 54 B. C., had broken a strong tie with his father-in-law. Further, the condition of the capital seemed reaching a point of anarchy at which Pompeius, as the only strong man on the spot, would have to be appointed absolute dictator. In 53 B. C. no consuls could, in the violence and turmoil of the comitia, be elected until July, and the year closed without any elections having taken place for 52 B. C. T. Annius Milo, who was a candidate for the consulship, and P. Clodius, who was seeking the prætorship, turned every street of Rome into a gladiatorial arena." In January Clodius was killed. "Pompeius was waiting in his new gardens near the Porta Carmentalis, until a despairing government should invest him with dictatorial power; he was altogether too timid and too constitutional to seize it. But with Cato in Rome no one dared mention the word dictator. Pompeius, disappointed, was named sole consul on the 4th of February [B. C. 52], and by July he had got as his colleague his new father-in-law, Metellus."

R. F. Horton, History of the Romans, chapter 29.

ALSO IN W. Forsyth, Life of Cicero, chapters 13-16 (volumes 1-2).

C. Merivale, The Roman Triumvirates, chapter 5.

G. Rawlinson, The Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 11.

ROME: B. C. 55-54. Cæsar's invasions of Britain.

See BRITAIN: B. C. 55-54.

ROME: B. C. 52-50. Rivalry of Pompeius and Cæsar. Approach of the crisis. Cæsar's legions in motion towards the capital.

"Cæsar had long ago resolved upon the overthrow of Pompey, as had Pompey, for that matter, upon his. For Crassus, the fear of whom had hitherto kept them in peace, having now been killed in Parthia, if the one of them wished to make himself the greatest man in Rome, he had only to overthrow the other; and if he again wished to prevent his own fall, he had nothing for it but to be beforehand with him whom he feared. Pompey had not been long under any such apprehensions, having till lately despised Cæsar, as thinking it no difficult matter to put down him whom he himself had advanced. But Cæsar had entertained this design from the beginning against his rivals, and had retired, like an expert wrestler, to prepare himself apart for the combat. Making the Gallic wars his exercise-ground, he had at once improved the strength of his soldiery, and had heightened his own glory by his great actions, so that he was looked on as one who might challenge comparison with Pompey. Nor did he let go any of those advantages which were now given him, both by Pompey himself and the times, and the ill government of Rome, where all who were candidates for office publicly gave money, and without any shame bribed the people, who, having received their pay, did not contend for their benefactors with their bare suffrages, but with bows, swords and slings. So that after having many times stained the place of election with the blood of men killed upon the spot, they left the city at last without a government at all, to be carried about like a ship without a pilot to steer her; while all who had any wisdom could only be thankful if a course of such wild and stormy disorder and madness might end no worse than in a monarchy. Some were so bold as to declare openly that the government was incurable but by a monarchy, and that they ought to take that remedy from the hands of the gentlest physician, meaning Pompey, who, though in words he pretended to decline it, yet in reality made his utmost efforts to be declared dictator. {2691} Cato, perceiving his design, prevailed with the Senate to make him sole consul [B. C. 52], that with the offer of a more legal sort of monarchy he might be withheld from demanding the dictatorship. They over and above voted him the continuance of his provinces, for he had two, Spain and all Africa, which he governed by his lieutenants, and maintained armies under him, at the yearly charge of a thousand talents out of the public treasury. Upon this Cæsar also sent and petitioned for the consulship, and the continuance of his provinces. Pompey at first did not stir in it, but Marcellus and Lentulus opposed it, who had always hated Cæsar, and now did everything, whether fit or unfit, which might disgrace and affront him. For they took away the privilege of Roman citizens from the people of New Comum, who were a colony that Cæsar had lately planted in Gaul; and Marcellus, who was then consul, ordered one of the senators of that town, then at Rome, to be whipped [B. C. 51], and told him he laid that mark upon him to signify he was no citizen of Rome, bidding him, when he went back again, to show it to Cæsar. After Marcellus's consulship, Cæsar began to lavish gifts upon all the public men out of the riches he had taken from the Gauls; discharged Curio, the tribune, from his great debts; gave Paulus, then consul, 1,500 talents, with which he built the noble court of justice adjoining the forum, to supply the place of that called the Fulvian. Pompey, alarmed at these preparations, now openly took steps, both by himself and his friends, to have a successor appointed in Cæsar's room, and sent to demand back the soldiers whom he had lent him to carry on the wars in Gaul. Cæsar returned them, and made each soldier a present of 250 drachmas. The officer who brought them home to Pompey, spread amongst the people no very fair or favorable report of Cæsar, and flattered Pompey himself with false suggestions that he was wished for by Cæsar's army; and though his affairs here were in some embarrassment through the envy of some, and the ill state of the government, yet there the army was at his command, and if they once crossed into Italy, would presently declare for him; so weary were they of Cæsar's endless expeditions, and so suspicious of his designs for a monarchy. Upon this Pompey grew presumptuous, and neglected all warlike preparations, as fearing no danger. … Yet the demands which Cæsar made had the fairest colors of equity imaginable. For he proposed to lay down his arms, and that Pompey should do the same, and both together should become private men, and each expect a reward of his services from the public. For that those who proposed to disarm him, and at the same time to confirm Pompey in all the power he held, were simply establishing the one in the tyranny which they accused the other of aiming at. When Curio made these proposals to the people in Cæsar's name, he was loudly applauded, and some threw garlands towards him, and dismissed him as they do successful wrestlers, crowned with flowers. Antony, being tribune, produced a letter sent from Cæsar on this occasion, and read it, though the consuls did what they could to oppose it. But Scipio, Pompey's father-in-law, proposed in the Senate, that if Cæsar did not lay down his arms within such a time, he should be voted an enemy; and the consuls putting it to the question, whether Pompey should dismiss his soldiers, and again, whether Cæsar should disband his, very few assented to the first, but almost all to the latter. But Antony proposing again, that both should lay down their commissions, all but a very few agreed to it. Scipio was upon this very violent, and Lentulus the consul cried aloud, that they had need of arms, and not of suffrages, against a robber; so that the senators for the present adjourned, and appeared in mourning as a mark of their grief for the dissension. Afterwards there came other letters from Cæsar, which seemed yet more moderate, for he proposed to quit everything else, and only to retain Gaul within the Alps, Illyricum, and two legions, till he should stand a second time for consul. Cicero, the orator, who was lately returned from Cilicia, endeavored to reconcile differences, and softened Pompey, who was willing to comply in other things, but not to allow him the soldiers. At last Cicero used his persuasions with Cæsar's friends to accept of the provinces and 6,000 soldiers only, and so to make up the quarrel. And Pompey was inclined to give way to this, but Lentulus, the consul, would not hearken to it, but drove Antony and Curio out of the senate-house with insults, by which he afforded Caesar [then at Ravenna] the most plausible pretence that could be, and one which he could readily use to inflame the soldiers, by showing them two persons of such repute and authority, who were forced to escape in a hired carriage in the dress of slaves. For so they were glad to disguise themselves, when they fled out of Rome. There were not about him at that time [November, B. C. 50] above 300 horse, and 5,000 foot: for the rest of his army, which was left behind the Alps, was to be brought after him by officers who had received orders for that purpose. But he thought the first motion towards the design which he had on foot did not require large forces at present, and that what was wanted was to make this first step suddenly, and so as to astound his enemies with the boldness of it. … Therefore, he commanded his captains and other officers to go only with their swords in their hands, without any other arms, and make themselves masters of Ariminum, a large city cf Gaul, with as little disturbance and bloodshed as possible. He committed the care of these forces to Hortensius, and himself spent the day in public as a stander-by and spectator of the gladiators, who exercised before him. A little before night he attended to his person, and then went into the hall, and conversed for some time with those he had invited to supper, till it began to grow dusk, when he rose from table, and made his excuses to the company, begging them to stay till he came back, having already given private directions to a few immediate friends, that they should follow him, not all the same way, but some one way, some another. He himself got into one of the hired carriages, and drove at first another way, but presently turned towards Ariminum."

_Plutarch, Cæsar (Clough's Dryden's translation)_

ALSO IN Cæsar, Commentaries on the Civil War, book 1, chapters 1-8.

T. Arnold, History of the Later Roman Commonwealth, chapter 8 (volume 1).

{2692}

ROME: B. C. 50-49. Cæsar's passage of the Rubicon. Flight of Pompeius and the Consuls from Italy. Cæsar at the capital.

"About ten miles from Ariminum, and twice that distance from Ravenna, the frontier of Italy and Gaul was traced by the stream of the Rubicon. This little river, red with the drainage of the peat mosses from which it descends [and evidently deriving its name from its color], is formed by the union of three mountain torrents, and is nearly dry in the summer, like most of the water courses on the eastern side of the Appenines. In the month of November the winter flood might present a barrier more worthy of the important position which it once occupied; but the northern frontier of Italy had long been secure from invasion, and the channel was spanned by a bridge of no great dimensions. … The ancients amused themselves with picturing the guilty hesitation with which the founder of a line of despots stood, as they imagined, on the brink of the fatal river [in the night of the 27th of November, B. C. 50, corrected calendar, or January 15, B. C. 49, without the correction], and paused for an instant before he committed the irrevocable act, pregnant with the destinies of a long futurity. Cæsar, indeed, in his Commentaries, makes no allusion to the passage of the Rubicon, and, at the moment of stepping on the bridge, his mind was probably absorbed in the arrangements he had made for the march of his legions or for their reception by his friends in Ariminum."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 14.

After the crossing of the Rubicon there were still more, messages between Cæsar and Pompey, and the consuls supporting the latter. "Each demands that the other shall first abandon his position. Of course, all these messages mean nothing. Cæsar, complaining bitterly of injustice, sends a portion of his small army still farther into the Roman territory. Marc Antony goes to Arezzo with five cohorts, and Cæsar occupies three other cities with a cohort each. The marvel is that he was not attacked and driven back by Pompey. We may probably conclude that the soldiers, though under the command of Pompey, were not trustworthy as against Cæsar. As Cæsar regrets his two legions, so no doubt do the two legions regret their commander. At any rate, the consular forces, with Pompey and the consuls and a host of senators, retreat southwards to Brundusium—Brindisi—intending to leave Italy. … During this retreat, the first blood in the civil war is spilt at Corfinium, a town which, if it now stood at all, would stand in the Abruzzi. Cæsar there is victor in a small engagement, and obtained possession of the town. The Pompeian officers whom he finds there he sends away, and allows them even to carry with them money which he believes to have been taken from the public treasury. Throughout his route southward the soldiers of Pompey—who had heretofore been his soldiers—return to him. Pompey and the consuls still retreat, and still Cæsar follows them, though Pompey had boasted, when first warned to beware of Cæsar, that he had only to stamp upon Italian soil and legions would arise from the earth ready to obey him. He knows, however, that away from Rome, in her provinces, in Macedonia and Achaia, in Asia and Cilicia, in Sicily, Sardinia, and Africa, in Mauritania and the two Spains, there are Roman legions which as yet know no Cæsar. It may be better for Pompey that he should stamp his foot somewhere out of Italy. At any rate he sends the obedient consuls and his attendant senators over to Dyrrhachium in Illyria with a part of his army, and follows with the remainder as soon as Cæsar is at his heels. Cæsar makes an effort to intercept him and his fleet, but in that he fails. Thus Pompey deserts Rome and Italy,—and never again sees the imperial city or the fair land. Cæsar explains to us why he does not follow his enemy and endeavour at once to put an end to the struggle. Pompey is provided with shipping and he is not; and he is aware that the force of Rome lies in her provinces. Moreover, Rome may be starved by Pompey, unless he, Cæsar, can take care that the corn-growing countries, which are the granaries of Rome, are left free for the use of the city."

A. Trollope, The Commentaries of Cæsar, chapter 9.

Turning back from Brundisium, Cæsar proceeded to Rome to take possession of the seat of government which his enemies had abandoned to him. He was scrupulous of legal forms, and, being a proconsul, holding military command, did not enter the city in person. But he called together, outside of the walls, such of the senators as were in Rome and such as could be persuaded to return to the city, and obtained their formal sanction to various acts. Among the measures so authorized was the appropriation of the sacred treasure stored up in the vaults of the temple of Saturn. It was a consecrated reserve, to be used for no purpose except the repelling of a Gallic invasion which had been, for many generations, the greatest dread of Rome. Cæsar claimed it, because he had put an end to that fear, by conquering the Gauls. His stay at Rome on this occasion (April, B. C. 49) was brief, for he needed to make haste to encounter the Pompeian legions in Spain, and to secure the submission of all the west before he followed Pompeius into the Eastern world.

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 5, chapters 1-4.

ALSO IN J_. A. Froude, Cæsar, chapter 21._

ROME: B. C. 49. Cæsar's first campaign against the Pompeians in Spain. His conquest of Massilia.

In Spain, all the strong forces of the country were commanded by partisans of Pompeius and the Optimate party. Cæsar had already sent forward C. Fabius from Southern Gaul with three legions, to take possession of the passes of the Pyrenees and the principal Spanish roads. Following quickly in person, he found that his orders had been vigorously obeyed. Fabius was confronting the Pompeian generals, Afranius and Petreius at Ilerda (modern Lerida in Catalonia), on the river Sicoris (modern Segre), where they made their stand. They had five legions of well-trained veterans, besides native auxiliaries to a considerable number. Cæsar's army, with the reinforcements that he had added to it, was about the same. The Pompeians had every advantage of position, commanding the passage of the river by a permanent bridge of stone and drawing supplies from both banks. Cæsar, on the other hand, had great difficulty in maintaining his communications, and was placed in mortal peril by a sudden flood which destroyed his bridges. Yet, without any general battle, by pure strategic skill and by resistless energy, he forced the hostile army out of its advantageous position, intercepted its retreat and compelled an unconditional surrender. This Spanish campaign, which occupied but forty days, and which was decisive of the contest for all Spain, was one of the finest of Cæsar's military achievements. {2693} The Greek city of Massilia (modern Marseilles), still nominally independent and the ally of Rome, although surrounded by the Roman conquests in Gaul, had seen fit to range itself on the side of Pompeius and the Optimates, and to close its gates in the face of Cæsar, when he set out for his campaign in Spain. He had not hesitated to leave three legions of his moderate army before the city, while he ordered a fleet to be built at Arelates (Arles), for coöperation in the siege. Decimus Brutus commanded the fleet and Trebonius was the general of the land force. The siege was made notable by remarkable engineering operations on both sides, but the courage of the Massiliots was of no long endurance. When Cæsar returned from his Spanish campaign he found them ready to surrender. Notwithstanding they had been guilty of a great act of treachery during the siege, by breaking an armistice, he spared their city, on account, he said, of its name and antiquity. His soldiers, who had expected rich booty, were offended, and a dangerous mutiny, which occurred soon afterwards at Placentia, had this for its main provocation.

Cæsar, The Civil War, book 1, chapters 36-81, and book 2, chapters 1-22.

ALSO IN G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 5, chapters 5 and 8.

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapters 15-16.

ROME: B. C. 48. The war in Epirus and Thessaly. Cæsar's decisive victory at Pharsalia.

Having established his authority in Italy, Gaul and Spain, and having legalized it by procuring from the assembly of the Roman citizens his formal election to the consulship, for the year A. U. 706 (B. C. 48), Cæsar prepared to follow Pompeius and the Senatorial party across the Adriatic. As the calendar then stood, it was in January that he arrived at Brundisium to take ship; but the season corresponded with November in the calendar as Cæsar, himself, corrected it soon afterwards. The vessels at his command were so few that he could transport only 15,500 of his troops on the first expedition, and it was with that number that he landed at Palæste on the coast of Epirus. The sea was swarming with the fleets of his enemies, and, although he escaped them in going, his small squadron was caught on the return voyage and many of its ships destroyed. Moreover, the Pompeian cruisers became so vigilant that the second detachment of his army, left behind at Brundisium, under Marcus Antonius, found no opportunity to follow him until the winter had nearly passed. Meantime, with his small force, Cæsar proceeded boldly into Macedonia to confront Pompeius, reducing fortresses and occupying towns as he marched. Although his great antagonist had been gathering troops in Macedonia for months, and now numbered an army of some 90,000 or 100,000 men, it was Cæsar, not Pompeius, who pressed for a battle, even before Mark Antony had joined him. As soon as the junction had occurred he pushed the enemy with all possible vigor. But Pompeius had no confidence in his untrained host. He drew his whole army into a strongly fortified, immense camp, on the sea coast near Dyrrhachium, at a point called Petra, and there he defied Cæsar to dislodge him. The latter undertook to wall him in on the land-side of his camp, by a line of ramparts and towers seventeen miles in length. It was an undertaking too great for his force. Pompeius made a sudden flank movement which disconcerted all his plans, and so defeated and demoralized his men that he was placed in extreme peril for a time. Had the Senatorial chief shown half of Cæsar's energy at that critical moment, the cause of Cæsar would probably have been lost. But Pompeius and his party took time to rejoice over their victory, while Cæsar framed plans to repair his defeat. He promptly abandoned his lines before the enemy's camp and fell back into the interior of the country, to form a junction with certain troops which he had previously sent eastward to meet reënforcements then coming to Pompeius. He calculated that Pompeius would follow him, and Pompeius did so. The result was to give Cæsar, at last, the opportunity he had been seeking for months, to confront with his tried legions the motley levies of his antagonist on an open field. The decisive and ever memorable battle was fought in Thessaly, on the plain of Pharsalia, through which flows the river Enipeus, and overlooking which, from a contiguous height, stood anciently the city of Pharsalus. It was fought on the 9th of August, in the year 48 before Christ. It was a battle quickly ended. The foot-soldiers of Pompeius out-numbered those of Cæsar at least as two to one; but they could not stand the charge which the latter made upon them. His cavalry was largely composed of the young nobility of Rome, and Cæsar had few horsemen with which to meet them; but he set against them a strong reserve of his sturdy veterans on foot, and they broke the horsemen's ranks. The defeat was speedily a rout; there was no rallying. Pompeius fled with a few attendants and made his way to Alexandria, where his tragical fate overtook him. Some of the other leaders escaped in different directions. Some, like Brutus, submitted to Cæsar, who was practically the master, from that hour, of the Roman realm, although Thapsus had still to be fought.

Cæsar, The Civil War, book 3.

ALSO IN W. W. Fowler, Julius Cæsar, chapter 16.

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 5, chapters 10-17.

T. A. Dodge, Cæsar, chapters 31-35.

ROME: B. C. 48-47. Pursuit or Pompeius to Egypt. His assassination. Cæsar at Alexandria, with Cleopatra. The rising against him. His peril. His deliverance.

See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47.

ROME: B. C. 47-46. Cæsar's overthrow or Pharnaces at Zela. His return to Rome. The last stand or his opponents in Africa. Their defeat at Thapsus.

At the time when Cæsar was in a difficult position at Alexandria, and the subjects of Rome were generally uncertain as to whether their yoke would be broken or not by the pending civil war, Pharnaces, son of the vanquished Pontic king, Mithridates, made an effort to recover the lost kingdom of his father. He himself had been a traitor to his father, and had been rewarded for his treason by Pompeius, who gave him the small kingdom of Bosporus, in the Crimea. He now thought the moment favorable for regaining Pontus, Cappadocia and Lesser Armenia. Cæsar's lieutenant in Asia Minor, Domitius Calvinus, marched against him with a small force, and was badly defeated at Nicopolis (B. C. 48), in Armenia Minor. {2694} As a consequence, Cæsar, on being extricated from Alexandria, could not return to Rome, although his affairs there sorely needed him, until he had restored the Roman authority in Asia Minor. As soon as he could reach Pharnaces, although his army was small in numbers, he struck and shattered the flimsy throne at a single blow. The battle was fought (B. C. 47) at Zela, in Pontus, where Mithridates had once gained a victory over the Romans. It was of this battle that Cæsar is said to have written his famous 'Veni, vidi, vici.' "Plutarch says that this expression was used in a letter to one Amintius; the name is probably a mistake. Suetonius asserts that the three words were inscribed on a banner and carried in Cæsar's triumph. Appian and Dion refer to them as notorious."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 18.

After defeating Pharnaces at Zela, destroying his army, "Cæsar passed on through Galatia and Bithynia to the province of Asia proper, settling affairs in every centre; and leaving the faithful Mithridates [of Pergamum—See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47] with the title of King of the Bosphorus, as a guarantee for the security of these provinces, he sailed for Italy, and arrived at Tarentum before anyone was aware of his approach. If he had really wasted time or lost energy in Egypt, he was making up for it now. On the way from Tarentum to Brundisium he met Cicero, who had been waiting for him here for nearly a year. He alighted, embraced his old friend, and walked with him some distance. The result of their talk was shown by Cicero's conduct for the rest of Cæsar's lifetime; he retired to his villas, and sought relief in literary work, encouraged doubtless by Cæsar's ardent praise. The magical effect of Cæsar's presence was felt throughout Italy; all sedition ceased, and Rome, which had been the scene of riot and bloodshed under the uncertain rule of Antonius, was quiet in an instant. The master spent three months in the city, working hard. He had been a second time appointed dictator while he was in Egypt, and probably without any limit of time, space or power; and he acted now without scruple as an absolute monarch. Everything that had to be done he saw to himself. Money was raised, bills were passed, the Senate recruited, magistrates and provincial governors appointed. But there was no time for any attempt at permanent organisation; he must wrest Africa from his enemies. … He quelled a most serious mutiny, in which even his faithful tenth legion was concerned, with all his wonderful skill and knowledge of human nature; sent on all available forces to Sicily, and arrived himself at Lilybæum in the middle of December."

W. W. Fowler, Julius Cæsar, chapter 17.

The last stand of Cæsar's opponents as a party—the senatorial party, or the republicans, as they are sometimes called—was made in Africa, on the old Carthaginian territory, with the city of Utica for their headquarters, and with Juba, the Numidian king, for their active ally. Varus, who had held his ground there, defeating and slaying Cæsar's friend Curio, was joined first by Scipio, afterwards by Cato, Labienus and other leaders, Cato having led a wonderful march through the desert from the Lesser Syrtis. In the course of the year of respite from pursuit which Cæsar's occupations elsewhere allowed them, they gathered and organized a formidable army. It was near the end of the year 47 B. G. that Cæsar assembled his forces at Lilybæum, in Sicily, and sailed with the first detachment for Africa. As happened so often to him in his bold military adventures, the troops which should follow were delayed by storms, and he was exposed to imminent peril before they arrived. But he succeeded in fortifying and maintaining a position on the coast, near Ruspina, until they came. As soon as they reached him he offered battle to his adversaries, and found presently an opportunity to force the fighting upon them at Thapsus, a coast town in their possession, which he attacked. The battle was decided by the first charge of Cæsar's legionaries, which swept everything—foot-soldiers, cavalry and elephants —before it. The victors in their ferocity gave no quarter and slaughtered 10,000 of the enemy, while losing from their own ranks but fifty men. The decisive battle of Thapsus was fought on the 6th of April, B. C. 46, uncorrected calendar, or February 6th, as corrected later. Scipio, the commander, fled to Spain, was intercepted on the voyage, and ended his own life. The high-minded, stoical Cato committed suicide at Utica, rather than surrender his freedom to Cæsar. Juba, the Numidian king, likewise destroyed himself in despair; his kingdom was extinguished and Numidia became a Roman province. A few scattered leaders of revolt still disputed Cæsar's supremacy, but his power was firmly fixed.

_A. Hirtius, The African War._

ALSO IN G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 5, chapters 24-27.

ROME: B. C. 45: Cæsar's last campaign against the Pompeians in Spain. His victory at Munda.

After Thapsus, Cæsar had one more deadly and desperate battle to fight for his sovereignty over the dominions of Rome. Cnæus Pompeius, son of Pompeius Magnus, with Labienus and Varus, of the survivors of the African field, had found disaffection in Spain, out of which they drew an army, with Pompeius in command. Cæsar marched in person against this new revolt, crossing the Alps and the Pyrenees with his customary celerity. After a number of minor engagements had been fought, the decisive battle occurred at Munda, in the valley of the Guadalquiver (modern Munda, between Honda and Malaga), on the 17th of March, B. C. 45. "Never, it is said, was the great conqueror brought so near to defeat and destruction;" but he won the day in the end, and only Sextus Pompeius survived among the leaders of his enemies. The dead on the field were 30,000.

_Julius Cæsar, Commentary on the Spanish War._

ALSO IN C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 19.

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 5, chapter 30.

ROME: B. C. 45-44. The Sovereignty of Cæsar and his titles. His permanent Imperatorship. His unfulfilled projects.

"At Home, official enthusiasm burst forth anew at the tidings of these successes [in Spain]. The Senate decreed fifty days of supplications, and recognized Cæsar's right to extend the pomœrium, since he had extended the limits of the Empire. … After Thapsus he was more than a demi-god; after Munda he was a god altogether. A statue was raised to him in the temple of Quirinus with the inscription: 'To the invincible God,' and a college of priests, the Julian, was consecrated to him. … On the 18th September the dictator appeared at the gates of Rome, but he did not triumph till the beginning of October. {2695} This time there was no barbarian king or chieftain to veil the victories won over citizens. But Cæsar thought he had no longer need to keep up such consideration; since he was now the State, his enemies, whatever name they bore, must be enemies of the State. … It was expected that Cæsar, having suffered so many outrages, would now punish severely, and Cicero, who had always doubted his clemency, believed that tyranny would break out as soon as the tyrant was above fear. But jealousies, recollections of party strifes, did not reach to the height of Cæsar. … He restored the statues of Sylla; he replaced that of Pompey on the rostra. … He pardoned Cassius, who had tried to assassinate him, the consularis Marcellus who had stirred up war against him, and Quintus Ligarius who had betrayed him in Africa. As a temporary precaution, however, he forbade to the Pompeians, by a 'lex Hirtia,' admission to the magistracy. For his authority, Cæsar sought no new forms. … Senate, comitia, magistracies existed as before; but he centred public action in himself alone by combining in his own hands all the republican offices. The instrument which Cæsar used in order to give to his power legal sanction was the Senate. In former times, the general, after the triumph; laid aside his title of imperator and imperium, which included absolute authority over the army, the judicial department and the administrative power; Cæsar, by a decree of the Senate, retained both during life, with the right of drawing freely from the treasury. His dictatorship and his office of præfectus morum were declared perpetual; the consulship was offered him for ten years, but he would not accept it; the Senate wished to join executive to electoral authority by offering him the right of appointment in all curule and plebeian offices; he reserved for himself merely the privilege of nominating half the magistracy. The Senate had enjoined the members chosen to swear, before entering on office, that they would undertake nothing contrary to the dictator's acts, these having the force of law. Further, they gave to his person the legal inviolability of the tribunes, and in order to ensure it, knights and senators offered to serve as guards, while the whole Senate took an oath to watch over his safety. To the reality of power were added the outward signs. In the Senate, at the theatre, in the circus, on his tribunal, he sat, dressed in the royal robe, on a throne of gold, and his effigy was stamped on the coins, where the Roman magistrates had not yet ventured to engrave more than their names. They even went as far as talking of succession, as in a regular monarchy. His title of imperator and the sovereign pontificate were transmissible to his legitimate or adopted children. … Cæsar was not deceived by the secret perfidy which prompted such servilities, and he valued them as they deserved. But his enemies found in them fresh reasons for hating the great man who had saved them. … The Senate had … sunk from its character of supreme council of the Republic into that of a committee of consultation, which the master often forgot to consult. The Civil war had decimated it; Cæsar appointed to it brave soldiers, even sons of freedmen who had served him well, and a considerable number of provincials, Spaniards, Gauls of Gallia Narbonensis, who had long been Romans. He had so many services to reward that his Senate reached the number of 900 members. … One day the Senate went in a body to the temple of Venus Genetrix to present to Cæsar certain decrees drawn up in his honor. The demi-god was ill and dared not leave his couch. This was imprudent, for the report spread that he had not deigned to rise. … The higher nobles remained apart, not from honours, but from power; but they forgot neither Pharsalia nor Thapsus. They would have consented to obey on condition of having the appearance of commanding. This disguised obedience is for an able government more convenient than outward servility. A few concessions made to vanity obtain tranquil possession of power. This was the policy of Augustus, but it is not that of great ambitions or of a true statesman. These pretences leave everything doubtful; nothing is settled; and Cæsar wished to lay the foundations of a government which should bring a new order of things out of a chaos of ruins. Unless we are paying too much attention to mere anecdotes, he desired the royal diadem. … It is difficult not to believe that Cæsar considered the constituting of a monarchical power as the rational achievement of the revolution which he was carrying out. In this way we could explain the persistence of his friends in offering him a title odious to the Romans, who were quite ready to accept a monarch, but not monarchy. … In order to attain to this royal title … he must mount still higher, and this new greatness he would seek in the East. … It was meet that he should wipe out the second military humiliation of Rome after effacing the first; that he should avenge Crassus."

V. Duruy, History of Rome, chapter 58, sections 2-3 (volume 3).

"Cæsar was born to do great things, and had a passion after honor. … It was in fact a sort of emulous struggle with himself, as it had been with another, how he might outdo his past actions by his future. In pursuit of these thoughts he resolved to make war upon the Parthians, and when he had subdued them, to pass through Hyrcania; thence to march along by the Caspian Sea to Mount Caucasus, and so on about Pontus, till he came into Scythia; then to overrun all the countries bordering upon Germany, and Germany itself; and so to return through Gaul into Italy, after completing the whole circle of his intended empire, and bounding it on every side by the ocean. While preparations were making for this expedition, he proposed to dig through the isthmus on which Corinth stands; and appointed Anienus to superintend the work. He had also a design of diverting the Tiber, and carrying it by a deep channel directly from Rome to Circeii, and so into the sea near Tarracina, that there might be a safe and easy passage for all merchants who traded to Rome. Besides this, he intended to drain all the marshes by Pomentium and Setia, and gain ground enough from the water to employ many thousands of men in tillage. He proposed further to make great mounds on the shore nearest Rome, to hinder the sea from breaking in upon the land, to clear the coast at Ostia of all the hidden rocks and shoals that made it unsafe for shipping, and to form ports and harbors fit to receive the large number of vessels that would frequent them. These things were designed without being carried into effect; but his reformation of the calendar [See CALENDAR, JULIAN], in order to rectify the irregularity of time, was not only projected with great scientific ingenuity, but was brought to its completion, and proved of very great use."

_Plutarch, Cæsar (Clough's Dryden's translation)._

ALSO IN T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 5, chapter 11, with note.

{2696}

ROME: B. C. 44. The Assassination of Cæsar.

"The question of the kingship was over; but a vague alarm had been created, which answered the purpose of the Optimates. Cæsar was at their mercy any day. They had sworn to maintain all his acts. They had sworn, after Cicero's speech, individually and collectively to defend his life. Cæsar, whether he believed them sincere or not, had taken them at their word, and came daily to the Senate unarmed and without a guard. … There were no troops in the city. Lepidus, Cæsar's master of the horse, who had been appointed governor of Gaul, was outside the gates with a few cohorts; but Lepidus was a person of feeble character, and they trusted to be able to deal with him. Sixty senators, in all, were parties to the immediate conspiracy. Of these, nine tenths were members of the old faction whom Cæsar had pardoned, and who, of all his acts, resented most that he had been able to pardon them. They were the men who had stayed at home, like Cicero, from the fields of Thapsus and Munda, and had pretended penitence and submission that they might take an easier road to rid themselves of their enemy. Their motives were the ambition of their order and personal hatred of Cæsar; but they persuaded themselves that they were animated by patriotism, and as, in their hands, the Republic had been a mockery of liberty, so they aimed at restoring it by a mock tyrannicide. … One man only they were able to attract into coöperation who had a reputation for honesty, and could be conceived, without absurdity, to be animated by a disinterested purpose. Marcus Brutus was the son of Cato's sister Servilia, the friend, and a scandal said the mistress, of Cæsar. That he was Cæsar's son was not too absurd for the credulity of Roman drawing-rooms. Brutus himself could not have believed in the existence of such a relation, for he was deeply attached to his mother; and although, under the influence of his uncle Cato, he had taken the Senate's side in the war, he had accepted afterwards not pardon only from Cæsar, but favors of many kinds, for which he had professed, and probably felt, some real gratitude. … Brutus was perhaps the only member of the senatorial party in whom Cæsar felt genuine confidence. His known integrity, and Cæsar's acknowledged regard for him, made his accession to the conspiracy an object of particular importance. … Brutus, once wrought upon, became with Cassius the most ardent in the cause which assumed the aspect to him of a sacred duty. Behind them were the crowd of senators of the familiar faction, and others worse than they, who had not even the excuse of having been partisans of the beaten cause; men who had fought at Cæsar's side till the war was over, and believed, like Labienus, that to them Cæsar owed his fortune, and that he alone ought not to reap the harvest. … The Ides of March drew near. Cæsar was to set out in a few days for Parthia. Decimus Brutus was going, as governor, to the north of Italy, Lepidus to Gaul, Marcus Brutus to Macedonia, and Trebonius to Asia Minor. Antony, Cæsar's colleague in the consulship, was to remain in Italy. Dolabella, Cicero's son-in-law, was to be consul with him as soon as Cæsar should have left for the East. The foreign appointments were all made for five years, and in another week the party would be scattered. The time for action had come, if action there was to be. … An important meeting of the Senate had been called for the Ides (the 15th) of the month. The Pontifices, it was whispered, intended to bring on again the question of the Kingship before Cæsar's departure. The occasion would be appropriate. The Senate-house itself was a convenient scene of operations. The conspirators met at supper the evening before at Cassius's house. Cicero, to his regret, was not invited. The plan was simple, and was rapidly arranged. Cæsar would attend unarmed. The senators not in the secret would be unarmed also. The party who intended to act were to provide themselves with poniards, which could be easily concealed in their paper boxes. So far all was simple; but a question rose whether Cæsar only was to be killed, or whether Antony and Lepidus were to be dispatched along with him. They decided that Cæsar's death would be sufficient. … Antony and Lepidus were not to be touched. For the rest the assassins had merely to be in their places in the Senate in good time. When Cæsar entered, Trebonius was to detain Antony in conversation at the door. The others were to gather about Cæsar's chair on pretence of presenting a petition, and so could make an end. A gang of gladiators were to be secreted in the adjoining theatre to be ready should any unforeseen difficulty present itself. … Strange stories were told in after years of the uneasy labors of the elements that night. … Calpurnia dreamt her husband was murdered, and that she saw him ascending into heaven, and received by the hand of God. In the morning (March 15th) the sacrifices were again unfavorable. Cæsar was restless. Some natural disorder affected his spirits, and his spirits were reacting on his body. Contrary to his usual habit, he gave way to depression. He decided, at his wife's entreaty, that he would not attend the Senate that day. The house was full. The conspirators were in their places with their daggers ready. Attendants came in to remove Cæsar's chair. It was announced that he was not coming. Delay might be fatal. They conjectured that he already suspected something. A day's respite, and all might be discovered. His familiar friend whom he trusted —the coincidence is striking—was employed to betray him. Decimus Brutus, whom it was impossible for him to distrust, went to entreat his attendance. … Cæsar shook off his uneasiness, and rose to go. As he crossed the hall his statue fell and shivered on the stones. Some servant, perhaps, had heard whispers, and wished to warn him. As he still passed on, a stranger thrust a scroll into his hand, and begged him to read it on the spot. It contained a list of the conspirators, with a clear account of the plot. He supposed it to be a petition and placed it carelessly among his other papers. The fate of the Empire hung upon a thread, but the thread was not broken. … Cæsar entered and took his seat. {2697} His presence awed men, in spite of themselves, and the conspirators had determined to act at once, lest they should lose courage to act at all. He was familiar and easy of access. They gathered round him. … One had a story to tell him; another some favor to ask. Tullius Cimber, whom he had just made governor of Bithynia, then came close to him, with some request which he was unwilling to grant. Cimber caught his gown, as if in entreaty, and dragged it from his shoulders. Cassius, who was standing behind, stabbed him in the throat. He started up with a cry and caught Cassius's arm. Another poniard entered his breast, giving a mortal wound. He looked round, and seeing not one friendly face, but only a ring of daggers pointing at him, he drew his gown over his head, gathered the folds about him that he might fall decently, and sank down without uttering another word. … The Senate rose with shrieks and confusion, and rushed into the Forum. The crowd outside caught the words that Cæsar was dead, and scattered to their houses. Antony, guessing that those who had killed Cæsar would not spare himself, hurried off into concealment. The murderers, bleeding some of them from wounds which they had given one another in their eagerness, followed, crying that the tyrant was dead, and that Rome was free; and the body of the great Cæsar was left alone in the house where a few weeks before Cicero told him that he was so necessary to his country that every senator would die before harm should reach him."

J. A. Froude, Cæsar, chapter 26.

ROME: B. C. 44. The genius and character of Cæsar. His rank among great men.

"Was Cæsar, upon the whole, the greatest of men? Dr. Beattie once observed, that if that question were left to be collected from the suffrages already expressed in books, and scattered throughout the literature of all nations, the scale would be found to have turned prodigiously in Cæsar's favor, as against any single competitor; and there is no doubt whatsoever, that even amongst his own countrymen, and his own contemporaries, the same verdict would have been returned, had it been collected upon the famous principle of Themistocles, that he should be reputed the first, whom the greatest number of rival voices had pronounced the second."

T. De Quincey, The Cæsars, chapter 1.

"The founder of the Roman Empire was a very great man. With such genius and such fortune it is not surprising that he should be made an idol. In intellectual stature he was at least an inch higher than his fellows, which is in itself enough to confound all our notions of right and wrong. He had the advantage of being a statesman before he was a soldier, whereas Napoleon was a soldier before he was a statesman. His ambition coincided with the necessity of the world, which required to be held together by force; and, therefore, his Empire endured for four hundred, or, if we include its Eastern offset, for fourteen hundred years, while that of Napoleon crumbled to pieces in four. But unscrupulous ambition was the root of his character. It was necessary, in fact, to enable him to trample down the respect for legality which still hampered other men. To connect him with any principle seems to me impossible. He came forward, it is true, as the leader of what is styled the democratic party, and in that sense the empire which he founded may be called democratic. But to the gamblers who brought their fortunes to that vast hazard table, the democratic and aristocratic parties were merely rouge and noir. The social and political equity, the reign of which we desire to see, was, in truth, unknown to the men of Cæsar's time. It is impossible to believe that there was an essential difference of principle between one member of the triumvirate and another. The great adventurer had begun by getting deeply into debt, and had thus in fact bound himself to overthrow the republic. He fomented anarchy to prepare the way for his dictatorship. He shrank from no accomplice however tainted, not even from Catiline; from no act however profligate or even cruel. … The noblest feature in Cæsar's character was his clemency. But we are reminded that it was ancient, not modern clemency, when we find numbered among the signal instances of it his having cut the throats of the pirates before he hanged them, and his having put to death without torture (simplici morte punivit) a slave suspected of conspiring against his life. Some have gone so far as to speak of him as the incarnation of humanity. But in the whole history of Roman conquest will you find a more ruthless conqueror? A million of Gauls we are told perished by the sword. Multitudes were sold into slavery. The extermination of the Eburones went to the verge even of ancient licence. The gallant Vercingetorix, who had fallen into Cæsar's hands under circumstances which would have touched any but a depraved heart, was kept by him a captive for six years, and butchered in cold blood on the day of the triumph. The sentiment of humanity was then undeveloped. Be it so, but then we must not call Cæsar the incarnation of humanity. Vast plans are ascribed to Cæsar at the time of his death, and it seems to be thought that a world of hopes for humanity perished when he fell. But if he had lived and acted for another century, what could he have done with those moral and political materials but found, what he did found, a military and sensualist empire. A multitude of projects are attributed to him by writers, who, we must remember, are late, and who make him ride a fairy charger with feet like the hands of a man. Some of these projects are really great, such as the codification of the law, and measures for the encouragement of intellect and science; others are questionable, such as the restoration of commercial cities from which commerce had departed; others, great works to be accomplished by an unlimited command of men and money, are the common dreams of every Nebuchadnezzar. … Still Cæsar was a very great man, and he played a dazzling part, as all men do who come just at the fall of an old system, when society is as clay in the hands of the potter, and found a new system in its place; while the less dazzling task of making the new system work, by probity and industry, and of restoring the shattered allegiance of a people to its institutions, descends upon unlaurelled heads. But that the men of his time were bound to recognise in him a Messiah, to use the phrase of the Emperor of the French, and that those who opposed him were Jews crucifying their Messiah is an impression which I venture to think will in time subside."

_Goldwin Smith, The Last Republicans of Rome (Macmillan's Magazine, April, 1868)._

ALSO IN: T. Arnold, History of the Later Roman Commonwealth, chapter 9 (volume 2).

A. Trollope, Life of Cicero, volume 2, chapter 8.

{2698}

ROME: B. C. 44. After Cæsar's death. Flight of "the Liberators." Mark Antony in power.- Arrival and wise conduct of Cæsar's heir, the young Octavius.

The assassins of Cæsar were not long in discovering that Rome gave no applause to their bloody deed. Its first effect was a simply stupefying consternation. The Senators fled,—the forum and the streets were nearly emptied. When Brutus attempted an harangue his hearers were few and silent. In gloomy alarm, he made haste, with his associates, to take refuge on the heights of the capitol. During the night which followed, a few senators, who approved the assassination—Cicero among the number—climbed the hill and held council with them in their place of retreat. The result was a second attempt made, on the following day, to rouse public feeling in their favor by speeches in the forum. The demonstration was again a failure, and the "liberators," as they wished to be deemed, returned with disappointment to the capitol. Meantime, the surviving consul, who had been Cæsar's colleague for the year, M. Antonius—known more commonly as Mark Antony—had acted with vigor to secure power in his own hands. He had taken possession of the great treasure which Cæsar left, and had acquired his papers. He had come to a secure understanding, moreover, with Lepidus, Cæsar's Master of Horse, who controlled a legion quartered near by, and who really commanded the situation, if his energy and his abilities had been equal to it. Lepidus marched his legion into the city, and its presence preserved order. Yet, with all the advantage in their favor, neither Antony nor Lepidus took any bold attitude against Cæsar's murderers. On the contrary, Antony listened to propositions from them and consented, as consul, to call a meeting of the Senate for deliberation on their act. At that meeting he even advocated what might be called a decree of oblivion, so far as concerned the striking down of Cæsar, and a confirmation of all the acts executed and unexecuted, of the late Imperator. These had included the recent appointment of Brutus, Cassius and other leaders among the assassins to high proconsular commands in the provinces. Of course the proposed measure was acceptable to them and their friends, while Antony, having Cæsar's papers in his possession, expected to gain everything from it. Under cover of the blank confirmation of Cæsar's acts, he found in Cæsar's papers a ground of authority for whatever he willed to do, and was accused of forging without limit where the genuine documents failed him. At the same time, taking advantage of the opportunity that was given to him by a public funeral decreed to Cæsar, he delivered an artful oration, which infuriated the people and drove the bloodstained "liberators" in terror from the city. But in many ways Antonius weakened the strong position which his skilful combinations had won for him. In his undisguised selfishness he secured no friends of his own; he alienated the friends of Cæsar by his calm indifference to the crime of the assassins of Cæsar, while he harvested for himself the fruits of it; above all, he offended and insulted the people by his impudent appropriation of Cæsar's vast hoard of wealth. The will of the slain Imperator had been read, and it was known that he had bequeathed three hundred sesterces—nearly £3 sterling, or $15—to every citizen of Rome. The heir named to the greater part of the estate was Cæsar's favorite grand-nephew (grandson of his younger sister, Julia) Caius Octavius, who became, by the terms of the will, his adopted son, and who was henceforth to bear the name Caius Julius Cæsar Octavianus. The young heir, then but eighteen years of age, was at Apollonia, in Illyria, at the quarters of a considerable force which Cæsar had assembled there. With wonderful coolness and prudence for his age, he declined proposals to lead the army to Rome, for the assertion of his rights, but went quietly thither with a few friends, feeling the public pulse as he journeyed. At Rome he demanded from Antony the moneys which Cæsar had left, but the profligate and reckless consul had spent them and would give no account. By great exertions Octavius raised sufficient means on his own account to pay Cæsar's legacy to the Roman citizens, and thereby he consolidated a popular feeling in his own favor, against Antony, which placed him, at once, in important rivalry with the latter. It enabled him presently to share the possession of power with Antony and Lepidus, in the Second Triumvirate, and, finally, to seize the whole sovereignty which Cæsar intended to bequeath to him.

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapters 23-24.

ALSO IN: G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 5, chapter 34.

ROME: B. C. 44-42. Destruction of the Liberators. Combination of Antony, Octavius and Lepidus. The Second Triumvirate.

Mark Antony's arrangement of peace with the murderers of Cæsar, on the basis of a confirmation in the Senate of all Cæsar's acts, gave to Marcus Brutus the government of Macedonia, to Decimus Brutus that of Cisalpine Gaul, and to Cassius that of Syria, since Cæsar had already named them to those several commands before they slew him. But Antony succeeded ere long in procuring decrees from the Senate, transferring Macedonia to his brother, and Syria to Dolabella. A little later he obtained a vote of the people giving Cisalpine Gaul to himself, and cancelling the commission of Decimus Brutus. His consular term was now near its expiration and he had no intention to surrender the power he had enjoyed. An army in northern Italy would afford the support which his plans required. But, before those plans were ripe, his position had grown exceedingly precarious. The Senate and the people were alike unfriendly to him, and alike disposed to advance Octavius in opposition. The latter, without office or commission, had already, in the lawless manner of the time, by virtue of the encouragement given to him, collected an army of several legions under his personal banner. Decimus Brutus refused to surrender the government of Gaul, and was supported by the best wishes of the Senate in defying Antony to wrest it from him. The latter now faced the situation boldly, and, although two legions brought from Epirus went over to Octavius, he collected a strong force at Ariminum, marched into Cisalpine Gaul and blockaded Decimus Brutus in Mutina (modern Modena). Meantime, new consuls, Hirtius and Pansa, had taken office at Rome, and the Senate, led by Cicero, had declared its hostility to Antony. {2699} Octavius was called upon to join the new consuls with his army, in proceeding against the late consul—now treated as a public enemy, though not so pronounced. He did so, and two battles were fought, on the 15th of April, B. C. 43, at Forum Gallorum, and on the 27th of the same month under the walls of Mutina, which forced Antony to retreat, but which cost Rome the lives of both her consuls. Antony retired across the Alps and joined his old friend Lepidus in Transalpine Gaul. Octavius declined to follow. Instead of doing so, he sent a military deputation to Rome to demand the consulship, and quickly followed it with his army when the demand had been refused. The demonstration proved persuasive, and he was elected consul, with his half-brother for colleague. His next business was to come to terms with Antony and Lepidus, as against the Liberators and their friends. A conference was arranged, and the three new masters of Rome met in October, B. C. 43, on an island near Bononia (modern Bologna), constituting themselves a commission of three—a triumvirate —to settle the affairs of the commonwealth. They framed a formal contract of five years' duration; divided the powers of government between themselves; named officials for the subordinate places; and—most serious proceeding of all—prepared a proscription list, as Sulla had done, of enemies to be put out of the way. It was an appalling list of 300 senators (the immortal Cicero at their head) and 2,000 knights. When the work of massacre in Rome and Italy had been done, and when the terrified Senate had legalized the self-assumed title and authority of the triumvirs, these turned their attention to the East, where M. Brutus and Cassius had established and maintained themselves in power. Decimus Brutus was already slain, after desertion by his army and capture in attempted flight. In the summer of the year 42 B. C., Antony led a division of the joint army of the triumvirate across the sea and through Macedonia, followed soon after by Octavius with additional forces. They were met at Philippi, and there, in two great battles, fought with an interval of twenty days between, the republic of Rome was finally done to death. "The battle of Philippi, in the estimation of the Roman writers, was the most memorable conflict in their military annals. The numbers engaged on either side far exceed all former experience. Eighty thousand legionaries alone were counted on the one side, and perhaps 120,000 on the other—at least three times as many as fought at Pharsalia." Both Cassius and Brutus died by their own hands. There was no more opposition to the triumvirs, except from Sextus Pompeius, last survivor of the family of the great Pompeius, who had created for himself at sea a little half-piratical realm, and who forced the three to recognize him for a time as a fourth power in the Roman world. But he, too, perished, B. C. 35. For seven years, from B. C. 42 to B. C. 36, Antony ruled the East, Octavius the West, and Lepidus reigned in Africa.

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapters 24-28.

ALSO IN: C. Merivale, The Fall of the Roman Republic, chapter 15.

ROME: B. C. 31. The victory of Octavius at Actium. The rise of the Empire.

The battles of Philippi, which delivered the whole Roman world to Antony, Octavius and Lepidus (the Triumvirs), were fought in the summer of 42 B. C. The battle of Actium, which made Octavius—soon to be named Augustus—the single master of a now fully founded Empire, was fought on the 2d of September, B. C. 31. In the interval of eleven years, Octavius, governing Rome, Italy, and the provinces of the West, had steadily consolidated and increased his power, gaining the confidence, the favor and the fear of his subject people. Antony, oppressing the East, had consumed his energies and his time in dalliance with Cleopatra, and had made himself the object of hatred and contempt. Lepidus, who had Africa for his dominion to begin with, had measured swords with Octavius and had been summarily deposed, in the year 36 B. C. It was simply a question of time as to when Antony, in his turn, should make room for the coming monarch. Already, in the year after Philippi, the two sovereign-partners had been at the verge of war. Antony's brother and his wife, Fulvia, had raised a revolt in Italy against Octavius, and it had been crushed at Perusia, before Antony could rouse himself to make a movement in support of it. He did make a formidable demonstration at last; but the soldiers of the two rivals compelled them on that occasion to patch up a new peace, which was accomplished by a treaty negotiated at Brundisium and sealed by the marriage of Antony to Octavia, sister of Octavius. This peace was maintained for ten years, while the jealousies and animosities of the two potentates grew steadily more bitter. It came to an end when Octavius felt strong enough to defy the superior resources, in money, men and ships, which Antony held at his command. The preparations then made on both sides for the great struggle were stupendous and consumed a year. It was by the determination of Antony that the war assumed chiefly a naval character; but Octavius, not Antony, forced the sea-fight when it came. His smaller squadrons sought and attacked the swarming fleets of Egypt and Asia, in the Ambracian gulf, where they had been assembled. The great battle was fought at the inlet of the gulf, off the point, or "acte," of a tongue of land, projecting from the shores of Acarnania, on which stood a temple to Apollo, called the Actium. Hence the name of the battle. The cowardly flight of Cleopatra, followed by Antony, ended the conflict quickly, and the Antonian fleet was entirely destroyed. The deserted army, on shore, which had idly watched the sea-fight, threw down its arms, when the flight of Antonius was known. Before Octavius pursued his enemy into Egypt and to a despairing death, he had other work to do, which occupied him for nearly a year. But he was already sure of the sole sovereignty that he claimed. The date of the battle of Actium "has been formally recorded by historians as signalizing the termination of the republic and the commencement of the Roman monarchy."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 28.

{2700}

ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14. The settlement of the Empire by the second Cæsar, Octavius, called Augustus. His organization of government.

"Power and repute had passed away from the old forms of the Republic. The whole world lay at the feet of the master of many legions; it remained only to define the constitutional forms in which the new forces were to work. But to do this was no easy task. The perplexities of his position, the fears and hopes that crossed his mind, are thrown into dramatic form by the historian Dion Cassius, who brings a scene before our fancy in which Octavianus listens to the conflicting counsels of his two great advisers, Agrippa and Mæcenas. … There is little doubt that schemes of resignation were at some time discussed by the Emperor and by his circle of advisers. It is even possible, as the same writer tells us, that he laid before the Senators at this time some proposal to leave the helm of state and let them guide it as of old. … The scene, if ever really acted, was but an idle comedy. … It is more probable that he was content with some faint show of resistance when the Senate heaped their honours on his head, as afterwards when, more than once, after a ten years' interval, they solemnly renewed the tenure of his power. But we cannot doubt his sincerity in one respect—in his wish to avoid the kingly title and all the odious associations of the same. … He shrank also from another title, truly Roman in its character, but odious since the days of Sulla; and though the populace of Rome, when panic-struck by pestilence and famine, clamoured to have him made dictator, … yet nothing would induce him to bear the hateful name. But the name of Cæsar he had taken long ago, after his illustrious uncle's death, and this became the title first of the dynasty and then of the imperial office.

See CÆSAR, THE TITLE.

Besides this he allowed himself to be styled Augustus, a name which roused no jealousy and outraged no Roman sentiment, yet vaguely implied some dignity and reverence from its long association with the objects of religion. …

See AUGUSTUS, THE TITLE.

With this exception he assumed no new symbol of monarchic power, but was satisfied with the old official titles, which, though charged with memories of the Republic, yet singly corresponded to some side or fragment of absolute authority. The first of these was Imperator, which served to connect him with the army. … The title of the tribunician power connected the monarch with the interests of the lower orders. … The Emperor did not, indeed, assume the tribunate, but was vested with the tribunician power which overshadowed the annual holders of the office. It made his person sacred. … The 'princeps senatus' in old days had been the foremost senator of his time. … No one but the Emperor could fill this position safely, and he assumed the name henceforth to connect him with the Senate, as other titles seemed to bind him to the army and the people. For the post of Supreme Pontiff, Augustus was content to wait awhile, until it passed by death from the feeble hands of Lepidus. He then claimed the exclusive tenure of the office, and after this time Pontifex Maximus was always added to the long list of imperial titles. … Besides these titles to which he assumed an exclusive right he also filled occasionally and for short periods most of the republican offices of higher rank, both in the capital and in the country towns. He took from time to time the consular power, with its august traditions and imposing ceremonial. The authority of censor lay ready to his hands when a moral reform was to be set on foot, … or when the Senate was to be purged of unworthy members and the order of equites or knights to be reviewed and its dignity consulted. Beyond the capital the pro-consular power was vested in him without local limitations. … The offices of state at Rome, meantime, lasted on from the Republic to the Empire, unchanged in name, and with little seeming change of functions. Consuls, Prætors, Quæstors, Tribunes, and Ædiles rose from the same classes as before, and moved for the most part in the same round of work, though they had lost for ever their power of initiative and real control. … They were now mainly the nominees of Cæsar, though the forms of popular election were still for a time observed. … The consulship was entirely reserved for his nominees, but passed rapidly from hand to hand, since in order to gratify a larger number it was granted at varying intervals for a few months only. … It was part of the policy of Augustus to disturb as little as possible the old names and forms of the Republic. … But besides these he set up a number of new offices, often of more real power, though of lower rank. … The name præfectus, the 'préfêt' of modern France, stood in earlier days for the deputy of any officer of state charged specially to execute some definite work. The præfects of Cæsar were his servants, named by him and responsible to him, set to discharge duties which the old constitution had commonly ignored. The præfect of the city had appeared in shadowy form under the Republic to represent the consul in his absence. Augustus felt the need, when called away from Rome, to have some one there whom he could trust to watch the jealous nobles and control the fickle mob. His trustiest confidants, Mæcenas and Agrippa, filled the post, and it became a standing office, with a growing sphere of competence, overtopping the magistracies of earlier date. The præfects of the prætorian cohorts first appeared when the Senate formally assigned a body-guard to Augustus later in his reign. …

See PRÆTORIAN PRÆFECTS.

Next to these in power and importance came the præfects of the watch—the new police force organised by Augustus as a protection against the dangers of the night, and of the corn supplies of Rome, which were always an object of especial care on the part of the imperial government. … The title 'procurator,' which has come down to us in the form of 'proctor,' was at first mainly a term of civil law, and was used for a financial agent or attorney. The officers so called were regarded at the first as stewards of the Emperor's property or managers of his private business. … The agents of the Emperor's privy purse throughout the provinces were called by the same title, but were commonly of higher rank and more repute. Such in its bare outline was the executive of the imperial government. We have next to see what was the position of the Senate. … It was one of the first cares of Augustus to restore its credit. At the risk of odium and personal danger he more than once revised the list, and purged it of unworthy members, summoning eminent provincials in their place. … The functions also of the Senate were in theory enlarged. … But the substance of power and independence had passed away from it forever. Matters of great moment were debated first, not in the Senate House, but in a sort of Privy Council formed by the trusted advisers of the Emperor. … {2701} If we now turn our thoughts from the centre to the provinces we shall find that the imperial system brought with it more sweeping changes and more real improvement. … Augustus left to the Senate the nominal control of the more peaceful provinces, which needed little military force. … The remaining countries, called imperial provinces, were ruled by generals, called 'legati,' or in some few cases by proctors only. They held office during the good pleasure of their master. … There are signs that the imperial provinces were better ruled, and that the transference of a country to this class from the other was looked upon as a real boon, and not as an empty honour. Such in its chief features was the system of Augustus. … This was his constructive policy, and on the value of this creative work his claims to greatness must be based."

W. W. Capes, Roman History: The Early Empire, chapter 1.

"The arrangement undoubtedly satisfied the requirements of the moment. It saved, at least in appearance, the integrity of the republic, while at the same time it recognised and legalised the authority of the man, who was already by common consent 'master of all things'; and this it effected without any formal alteration of the constitution, without, the creation of any new office, and by means of the old constitutional machinery of senate and assembly. But it was an arrangement avowedly of an exceptional and temporary character. The powers voted to Augustus were, like those voted to Pompey in 67 B. C., voted only to him, and, with the exception of the tribunician power, voted only for a limited time. No provision was made for the continuance of the arrangement, after his death, in favour of any other person. And though in fact the powers first granted to Augustus were granted in turn to each of the long line of Roman Cæsars, the temporary and provisional character impressed upon the 'principate' at its birth clung to it throughout. When the princeps for the time being died or was deposed, it was always in theory an open question whether any other citizen should be invested with the powers he had held. Who the man should be, or how he should be chosen, were questions which it was left to circumstances to answer, and even the powers to be assigned to him were, strictly speaking, determined solely by the discretion of the senate and people in each case. It is true that necessity required that some one must always be selected to fill the position first given to Augustus; that accidents, such as kinship by blood or adoption to the last emperor, military ability, popularity with the soldiers or the senate, determined the selection; and that usage decided that the powers conferred upon the selected person should be in the main those conferred upon Augustus. But to the last the Roman emperor was legally merely a citizen whom the senate and people had freely invested with an exceptional authority for special reasons. Unlike the ordinary sovereign, he did not inherit a great office by an established law of succession; and in direct contrast to the modern maxim that 'the king never dies,' it has been well said that the Roman 'principate,' died with the princeps. Of the many attempts made to get rid of this irregular, intermittent character, none were completely successful, and the inconveniences and dangers resulting from it are apparent throughout the history of the empire."

H. F. Pelham, Outlines of Roman History, book 5, chapter 3.

ALSO IN: W. T. Arnold, The Roman System of Provincial Administration, chapter 3.

C. Merivale, History of the Romans under the Empire, chapters 30-34 (volume 3-4).

ROME: B. C. 16-15 Conquest of Rhætia.

See RHÆTIA.

ROME: B. C. 12-9. Campaigns of Drusus in Germany.

See GERMANY: B. C. 12-9.

ROME: B. C. 8-A. D. 11. Campaigns of Tiberius in Germany.

See GERMANY: B. C. 8-A. D. 11.

ROME: A. D. 14-16. Campaigns of Germanicus in Germany.

See GERMANY: A. D. 14-16.

ROME: A. D. 14-37. Reign of Tiberius. Increasing vices and cruelties of his rule. Campaigns of Germanicus in Germany. His death. The Delatores and their victims. Malignant ascendancy of Sejanus. The Prætorians quartered at Rome.

Augustus had one child only, a daughter, Julia, who was brought to him by his second wife Scribonia; but on his last marriage, with Livia, divorced wife of Tiberius Claudius Nero (divorced by his command), he had adopted her two sons, Tiberius and Drusus. He gave his daughter Julia in marriage, first, to his nephew, Marcellus, the son of his sister Octavia, by her first husband, C. Marcellus. But Marcellus soon died, without offspring, and Julia became the spouse of the emperor's friend and counsellor, Agrippa, to whom she bore three sons, Caius, Lucius, and Agrippa Posthumus (all of whom died before the end of the life of Augustus), and two daughters. Thus the emperor was left with no male heir in his own family, and the imperial succession fell to his adopted son Tiberius—the eldest son of his wife Livia and of her first husband, Tiberius Claudius Nero. There were suspicions that Livia had some agency in bringing about the several deaths which cleared her son's way to the throne. When Augustus died, Tiberius was "in his 56th year, or at least at the close of the 55th. … He had by this time acquired a perfect mastery in dissembling his lusts, and his mistrust. … He was anxious to appear as a moral man, while in secret he abandoned himself to lusts and debaucheries of every kind. … In accordance with this character, Tiberius now played the farce which is so admirably but painfully described by Tacitus; he declined accepting the imperium, and made the senate beg and intreat him to accept it for the sake of the public good. In the end Tiberius yielded, inasmuch as he compelled the senate to oblige him to undertake the government. This painful scene forms the beginning of Tacitus' Annals. The early part of his reign is marked by insurrections among the troops in Pannonia and on the Rhine. … Drusus [the son of Tiberius] quelled the insurrection in Illyricum, and Germanicus [the emperor's nephew, son of his brother Drusus, who had died in Germany, B. C. 9], that on the Rhine; but, notwithstanding this, it was in reality the government that was obliged to yield. … The reign of Tiberius, which lasted for 23 years, that is till A. D. 37, is by no means rich in events; the early period of it only is celebrated for the wars of Germanicus in Germany. … The war of Germanicus was carried into Germany as far as the river Weser [see GERMANY. A. D. 14-16], and it is surprising to see that the Romans thought it necessary to employ such numerous armies against tribes which had no fortified towns. … {2702} The history of his reign after the German wars becomes more and more confined to the interior and to his family. He had an only son, Drusus, by his first wife Agrippina; and Germanicus, the son of his brother Drusus, was adopted by him. Drusus must have been a young man deserving of praise; but Germanicus was the adored darling of the Roman people, and with justice: he was the worthy son of a worthy father, the hero of the German wars. … Germanicus had declined the sovereignty, which his legions had offered to him after the death of Augustus, and he remained faithful to his adopted father, although he certainly could not love him. Tiberius, however, had no faith in virtue, because he himself was destitute of it; he therefore mistrusted Germanicus, and removed him from his victorious legions." He sent him "to superintend the eastern frontiers and provinces. On his arrival there he was received with the same enthusiasm as at Rome; but he died very soon afterwards, whether by a natural death or by poison is a question upon which the ancients themselves are not agreed. … In the reign of Augustus, any offence against the person of the imperator had, by some law with which we are not further acquainted, been made a 'crimen majestatis,' as though it had been committed against the republic itself. This 'crimen' in its undefined character was a fearful thing; for hundreds of offences might be made to come within the reach of the law concerning it. All these deplorable cases were tried by the senate, which formed a sort of condemning machine set in motion by the tyrant, just like the national convention under Robespierre. … In the early part of Tiberius' reign, these prosecutions occurred very rarely; but there gradually arose a numerous class of denouncers ('delatores'), who made it their business to bring to trial anyone whom the emperor disliked."

See DELATION.—DELATORS).

This was after the death of the emperor's mother, Livia, whom he feared, and who restrained his worst propensities. After her influence was removed, "his dark and tyrannical nature got the upper hand: the hateful side of his character became daily more developed, and his only enjoyment was the indulgence of his detestable lust. … His only friend was Aelius Sejanus, a man of equestrian rank. … His character bore the greatest resemblance to that of his sovereign, who raised him to the office of præfectus praetorio. … Sejanus increased the number of the praetorian cohorts, and persuaded Tiberius to concentrate them in the neighbourhood of Rome, in the 'castrum praetorianum,' which formed us it were the citadel outside the wall of Servius Tullius, but in the midst of the present city. The consequences of this measure render it one of the most important events in Roman history; for the praetorians now became the real sovereigns, and occupied a position similar to that which the Janissaries obtained in Algeria: they determined the fate of the empire until the reign of Diocletian. …

See PRÆTORIAN GUARDS.

The influence of Sejanus over Tiberius increased every day, and he contrived to inspire his imperial friend with sufficient confidence to go to the island of Capreae. While Tiberius was there indulging in his lusts, Sejanus remained at Rome and governed as his vicegerent. … Prosecutions were now instituted against all persons of any consequence at Rome; the time when Tiberius left the capital is the beginning of the fearful annals of his reign." The tyrannical proceedings of Sejanus "continued for a number of years, until at length he himself incurred the suspicion of Tiberius," and was put out of the way. "But a man worse even than he succeeded; this was Macro, who had none of the great qualities of Sejanus, but only analogous vices. … The butchery at Rome even increased. … Caius Caesar, the son of Germanicus, commonly known by the name of Caligula, formed with Macro a connexion of the basest kind, and promised him the high post of 'praefectus praetorio' if he would assist him in getting rid of the aged monarch. Tiberius was at the time severely ill at a villa near cape Misenum. He fell into a state of lethargy, and everybody believed him to be dead. He came to life again however; on which he was suffocated, or at least his death was accelerated in some way, for our accounts differ on this point. Thus Tiberius died in the 23d year of his reign, A. D. 37, at the age of 78."

B. G. Niebuhr, Lectures on the History of Rome, lectures 111-112 (volume 3).

ALSO IN: Tacitus, Annals, books 1-6.

C. Merivale, History of the Romans under the Empire, chapters 42-46 (volume 5).

ROME: A. D. 37-41. Reign of Caligula, the first of the imperial madmen.

Cains Cæsar, son of Germanicus, owed his nickname, Caligula, to the soldiers of his father's command, among whom he was a great favorite in his childhood. The name was derived from "Caliga," a kind of foot covering worn by the common soldiers, and is sometimes translated "Little Boots." "Having … secured the imperial power, he fulfilled by his elevation the wish of the Roman people, I may venture to say, of all mankind: for he had long been the object of expectation and desire to the greater part of the provincials and soldiers, who had known him when a child; and to the whole people of Rome, from their affection for the memory of Germanicus, his father, and compassion for the family almost entirely destroyed. … Immediately on his entering the city, by the joint acclamations of the senate, and people, who broke into the senate-house, Tiberius's will was set aside, it having left his other grandson, then a minor, coheir with him; the whole government and administration of affairs was placed in his hands; so much to the joy and satisfaction of the public that, in less than three months after, above 160,000 victims are said to have been offered in sacrifice. … To this extraordinary love entertained for him by his countrymen was added an uncommon regard by foreign nations. … Caligula himself inflamed this devotion by practising all the arts of popularity. … He published accounts of the proceedings of the government—a practice which had been introduced by Augustus, but discontinued by Tiberius. He granted the magistrates a full and free jurisdiction, without any appeal to himself. He made a very strict and exact review of the Roman knights, but conducted it with moderation; publicly depriving of his horse every knight who lay under the stigma of any thing base and dishonourable. … He attempted likewise to restore to the people their ancient right of voting in the choice of magistrates. … He twice distributed to the people a bounty of 300 sesterces a man, and as often gave a splendid feast to the senate and the equestrian order, with their wives and children. … {2703} He frequently entertained the people with stage-plays of various kinds, and in several parts of the city, and sometimes by night, when he caused the whole city to be lighted. … He likewise exhibited a great number of circensian games from morning until night; intermixed with the hunting of wild beasts from Africa. … Thus far we have spoken of him as a prince. What remains to be said of him bespeaks him rather a monster than a man. … He was strongly inclined to assume the diadem, and change the form of government from imperial to regal; but being told that he far exceeded the grandeur of kings and princes, he began to arrogate to himself a divine majesty. He ordered all the images of the gods which were famous either for their beauty or the veneration paid them, among which was that of Jupiter Olympius, to be brought from Greece, that he might take the heads off, and put on his own. Having continued part of the Palatium as far as the Forum, and the temple of Castor and Pollux being converted into a kind of vestibule to his house, he often stationed himself between the twin brothers, and so presented himself to be worshipped by all votaries; some of whom saluted him by the name of Jupiter Latialis. He also instituted a temple and priests, with choicest victims, in honour of his own divinity. … The most opulent persons in the city offered themselves as candidates for the honour of being his priests, and purchased it successively at an immense price. … In the day-time he talked in private to Jupiter Capitolinus; one while whispering to him, and another turning his ear to him. … He was unwilling to be thought or called the grandson of Agrippa, because of the obscurity of his birth. … He said that his mother was the fruit of an incestuous commerce maintained by Augustus with his daughter Julia. … He lived in the habit of incest with an his sisters. … Whether in the marriage of his wives, in repudiating them, or retaining them, he acted with greater infamy, it is difficult to say." Some senators, "who had borne the highest offices in the government, he suffered to run by his litter in their togas for several miles together, and to attend him at supper, sometimes at the head of his couch, sometimes at his feet, with napkins. Others of them, after he had privately put them to death, he nevertheless continued to send for, as if they were still alive, and after a few days pretended that they had laid violent hands upon themselves. … When flesh was only to be had at a high price for feeding his wild beasts reserved for the spectacles, he ordered that criminals should be given them to be devoured; and upon inspecting them in a row, while he stood in the middle of the portico, without troubling himself to examine their cases he ordered them to be dragged away, from 'bald-pate to bald-pate' [a proverbial expression, meaning, without distinction.—Translator's foot-note]. … After disfiguring many persons of honourable rank, by branding them in the face with hot irons, he condemned them to the mines, to work in repairing the high-ways, or to fight with wild beasts; or tying them, by the neck and heels, in the manner of beasts carried to slaughter, would shut them up in cages, or saw them asunder. … He compelled parents to be present at the execution of their sons. … He generally prolonged the sufferings of his victims by causing them to be inflicted by slight and frequently repeated strokes; this being his well-known and constant order: . Strike so that he may feel himself die.' … Being incensed at the people's applauding a party at the Circensian games in opposition to him, he exclaimed, 'I wish the Roman people had but one neck.' … He used also to complain aloud of the state of the times, because it was not rendered remarkable by any public calamities. … He wished for some terrible slaughter of his troops, a famine, a pestilence, conflagrations, or an earthquake. Even in the midst of his diversions, while gaming or feasting, this savage ferocity, both in his language and actions, never forsook him. Persons were often put to the torture in his presence, whilst he was dining or carousing. A soldier, who was an adept in the art of beheading, used at such times to take off the heads of prisoners, who were brought in for that purpose. … He never had the least regard either to the chastity of his own person, or that of others. … Besides his incest with his sisters … there was hardly any lady of distinction with whom he did not make free. … Only once in his life did he take an active part in military affairs. … He resolved upon an expedition into Germany. … There being no hostilities, he ordered a few Germans of his guard to be carried over and placed in concealment on the other side of the Rhine, and word to be brought him after dinner that an enemy was advancing with great impetuosity. This being accordingly done, he immediately threw himself, with his friends, and a party of the pretorian knights, into the adjoining wood, where, lopping branches from the trees, and forming trophies of them, he returned by torch-light, upbraiding those who did not follow him with timorousness and cowardice. … At last, as if resolved to make war in earnest, he drew up his army upon the shore of the ocean, with his balistæ and other engines of war, and while no one could imagine what he intended to do, on a sudden commanded them to gather up the sea shells, and fill their helmets and the folds of their dress with them, calling them 'the spoils of the ocean due to the Capitol and the Palatium.' As a monument of his success he raised a lofty tower. … He was crazy both in body and mind, being subject, when a boy, to the falling sickness. … What most of all disordered him was want of sleep, for he seldom had more than three or four hours' rest in a night; and even then his sleep was not sound."

_Suetonius, Lives of the Twelve Cæsars: Caligula (translated by A. Thomson)._

ALSO IN: C. Merivale, History of the Romans under the Empire, chapters 47-48 (volume 5).

S. Baring-Gould, The Tragedy of the Cæsars, volume 2.

ROME: A. D. 41. The murder of Caligula. Elevation of Claudius to the throne by the Prætorians. Beginning of the domination of the soldiery.

"If we may believe our accounts, the tyrant's overthrow was due not to abhorrence of his crimes or indignation at his assaults on the Roman liberties, so much as to resentment at a private affront. Among the indiscretions which seem to indicate the partial madness of the wretched Caius, was the caprice with which he turned from his known foes against his personal friends and familiars. … No one felt himself secure, neither the freedmen who attended on his person, nor the guards who watched over his safety. {2704} Among these last was Cassius Chærea, tribune of a prætorian cohort, whose shrill woman's voice provoked the merriment of his master, and subjected him to injurious insinuations. Even when he demanded the watchword for the night the emperor would insult him with words and gestures. Chærea resolved to wipe out the affront in blood. He sought Callistus and others … and organized with them and some of the most daring of the nobles a plot against the emperor's life. … The festival of the Palatine games was fixed on for carrying the project into effect. Four days did Caius preside in the theatre, surrounded by the friends and guards who were sworn to slay him, but still lacked the courage. On the fifth and last, the 24th of January 794 [A. D. 41], feeling indisposed from the evening's debauch, he hesitated at first to rise. His attendants, however, prevailed on him to return once more to the shows; and as he was passing through the vaulted passage which led from the palace to the Circus, he inspected a choir of noble youths from Asia, who were engaged to perform upon the stage. … Caius was still engaged in conversation with them when Chærea and another tribune, Sabinus, made their way to him: the one struck him on the throat from behind with his sword, while the other was in the act of demanding the watchword. A second blow cleft the tyrant's jaw. He fell, and drawing his limbs together to save his body, still screamed, 'I live! I live!' while the conspirators thronging over him, and crying, 'again! again!' hacked him with thirty wounds. The bearers of his litter rushed to his assistance with their poles, while his body-guard of Germans struck wildly at the assassins, and amongst the crowd which surrounded them, killed, it was said, more than one senator who had taken no part in the affair. … When each of the conspirators had thrust his weapon into the mangled body, and the last shrieks of its agony had been silenced, they escaped with all speed from the corridor in which it lay; but they had made no dispositions for what was to follow, and were content to leave it to the consuls and senate, amazed and unprepared, to decide on the future destiny of the republic. … Some cohorts of the city guards accepted the orders of the consuls, and occupied the public places under their direction. At the same time the consuls, Sentins Saturninus and Pomponins Secundus, the latter of whom had been substituted for Caius himself only a few days before, convened the senate. … The first act of the sitting was to issue an edict in which the tyranny of Caius was denounced, and a remission of the most obnoxious of his taxes proclaimed, together with the promise of a donative to the soldiers. The fathers next proceeded to deliberate on the form under which the government should be henceforth administered. On this point no settled principles prevailed. Some were ready to vote that the memory of the Cæsars should be abolished, their temples overthrown, and the free state of the Scipios and Catos restored; others contended for the continuance of monarchy in another family, and among the chiefs of nobility more than one candidate sprang up presently to claim it. The debate lasted late into the night; and in default of any other specific arrangement, the consuls continued to act as the leaders of the commonwealth. … But while the senate deliberated, the prætorian guards had resolved. … In the confusion which ensued on the first news of the event, several of their body had flung themselves furiously into the palace, and begun to plunder its glittering chambers. None dared to offer them any opposition; the slaves and freedmen fled or concealed themselves. One of the inmates, half hidden behind a curtain in an obscure corner, was dragged forth with brutal violence; and great was the intruders' surprise when they recognised him as Claudius, the long despised and neglected uncle of the murdered emperor. He sank at their feet almost senseless with terror: but the soldiers in their wildest mood still respected the blood of the Cæsars, and instead of slaying or maltreating the suppliant, the brother of Germanicus, they hailed him, more in jest perhaps than earnest, with the title of Imperator, and carried him off to their camp. … In the morning, when it was found that the senate had come to no conclusion, and that the people crowding about its place of meeting were urging it with loud cries to appoint a single chief, and were actually naming him as the object of their choice, Claudius found courage to suffer the prætorians to swear allegiance to him, and at the same time promised them a donative of 15,000 sesterces apiece. … The senators assembled once again in the temple of Jupiter; but now their numbers were reduced to not more than a hundred, and even these met rather to support the pretensions of certain of their members, who aspired to the empire … than to maintain the cause of the ancient republic. But the formidable array of the prætorians, who had issued from their camp into the city, and the demonstrations of the popular will, daunted all parties in the assembly. … Presently the Urban cohorts passed over, with their officers and colours, to the opposite side. All was lost; the prætorians, thus reinforced, led their hero to the palace, and there he commanded the senate to attend upon him. Nothing remained but to obey and pass the decree, which had now become a formal act of investiture, by which the name and honours of Imperator were bestowed upon the new chief of the commonwealth. Such was the first creation of an emperor by the military power of the prætorians. … Surrounded by drawn swords Claudius had found courage to face his nephew's murderers, and to vindicate his authority to the citizens, by a strong measure of retribution, in sending Chærea and Lupus, with a few others of the blood-embrued, to immediate execution. … Claudius was satisfied with this act of vigour, and proceeded, with a moderation but little expected, to publish an amnesty for all the words and acts of the late interregnum. Nevertheless for thirty days he did not venture to come himself into the Curia. … The personal fears, indeed, of the new emperor contributed, with a kindly and placable disposition, to make him anxious to gain his subjects' good-will by the gentleness and urbanity of his deportment. … His proclamation of amnesty was followed by the pardon of numerous exiles and criminals, especially such as were suffering under sentence for the crime of majestas. … The popularity of the new prince, though manifested, thanks to his own discretion, by no such grotesque and impious flatteries as attended on the opening promise of Caius, was certainly not less deeply felt. … {2705} The confidence indeed of the upper classes, after the bitter disappointment they had so lately suffered, was not to be so lightly won. The senate and knights might view their new ruler with indulgence, and hope for the best; but they had been too long accustomed to regard him as proscribed from power by constitutional unfitness, as imbecile in mind, and which was perhaps in their estimation even a worse defect, as misshapen and half-developed in physical form, to anticipate from him a wise or vigorous administration. … In another rank he would have been exposed perhaps in infancy; as the son of Drusus and Antonia he was permitted to live: but he became from the first an object of disgust to his parents, who put him generally out of their sight, and left him to grow up in the hands of hirelings without judgment or feeling. … That the judgment of one from whom the practical knowledge of men and things had been withheld was not equal to his learning, and that the infirmities of his body affected his powers of decision, his presence of mind, and steadfastness of purpose, may easily be imagined: nevertheless, it may be allowed that in a private station, and anywhere but at Rome, Claudius would have passed muster as a respectable, and not, perhaps, an useless member of society. The opinion which is here given of this prince's character may possibly be influenced in some degree by the study of his countenance in the numerous busts still existing, which represent it as one of the most interesting of the whole imperial series. If his figure, as we are told, was tall, and when sitting appeared not ungraceful, his face, at least in repose, was eminently handsome. But it is impossible not to remark in it an expression of pain and anxiety which forcibly arrests our sympathy. It is the face of an honest and well-meaning man, who feels himself unequal to the task imposed upon him. … There is the expression of fatigue both of mind and body, which speaks of midnight watches over books, varied with midnight carouses at the imperial table, and the fierce caresses of rival mistresses. There is the glance of fear, not of open enemies, but of pretended friends; the reminiscence of wanton blows, and the anticipation of the deadly potion. Above all, there is the anxious glance of dependence, which seems to cast about for a model to imitate, for ministers to shape a policy, and for satellites to execute it. The model Claudius found was the policy of the venerated Augustus; but his ministers were the most profligate of women, and the most selfish of emancipated slaves. … The commencement of the new reign was marked by the renewed activity of the armies on the frontiers."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans under the Empire, chapters 48-49 (volume 5).

ALSO IN: W. W. Capes, The Early Empire, chapters 3-4.

ROME: A. D. 42-67. St. Peter and the Roman Church: The question.

See PAPACY: ST. PETER AND THE CHURCH AT ROM[E.

ROME: A. D. 43-53. Conquests of Claudius in Britain.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 43-53.

ROME: A. D. 47-54. The wives of Claudius, Messalina and Agrippina. Their infamous and terrible ascendancy. Murder of the emperor. Advent of Nero.

The wife of Claudius was "Valeria Messalina, the daughter of his cousin Barbatus Messala, a woman whose name has become proverbial for infamy. His most distinguished freedmen were the eunuch Posidus; Felix, whom he made governor of Judæa, and who had the fortune to be the husband of three queens; and Callistus, who retained the power which he had acquired under Caius. But far superior in point of influence to these were the three secretaries (as we may term them), Polybius, Narcissus, and Pallas. … The two last were in strict league with Messalina; she only sought to gratify her lusts; they longed for honours, power, and wealth. … Their plan, when they would have anyone put to death, was to terrify Claudius … by tales of plots against his life. … Slaves and freedmen were admitted as witnesses against their masters; and, though Claudius had sworn, at his accession, that no freeman should be put to the torture, knights and senators, citizens and strangers, were tortured alike. … Messalina now set no bounds to her vicious courses. Not content with being infamous herself, she would have others so; and she actually used to compel ladies to prostitute themselves even in the palace, and before the eyes of their husbands, whom she rewarded with honours and commands, while she contrived to destroy those who would not acquiesce in their wives' dishonour." At length (A. D. 48) she carried her audacity so far as to go publicly through a ceremony of marriage with one of her lovers. This nerved even the weak Claudius to resolution, and she was put to death. The emperor then married his niece, Julia Agrippina, the daughter of Germanicus. "The woman who had now obtained the government of Claudius and the Roman empire was of a very different character from the abandoned Messalina. The latter had nothing noble about her; she was the mere bond-slave of lust, and cruel and avaricious only for its gratification; but Agrippina was a woman of superior mind, though utterly devoid of principle. In her, lust was subservient to ambition; it was the desire of power, or the fear of death, and not wantonness, that made her submit to the incestuous embraces of her brutal brother Caius, and to be prostituted to the companions of his vices. It was ambition and parental love that made her now form an incestuous union with her uncle. … The great object of Agrippina was to exclude Britannicus [the son of Claudius by Messalina], and obtain the succession for her own son, Nero Domitius, now a boy of twelve years of age. She therefore caused Octavia [daughter of Claudius] to be betrothed to him, and she had the philosopher Seneca recalled from Corsica, whither he had been exiled by the arts of Messalina, and committed to him the education of her son, that he might be fitted for empire. In the following year (51) Claudius, yielding to her influence, adopted him." But, although Britannicus was thrust into the background and treated with neglect, his feeble father began after a time to show signs of affection for him, and Agrippina, weary of waiting and fearful of discomfiture, caused poison to be administered to the old emperor in his food (A. D. 54). "The death of Claudius was concealed till all the preparations for the succession of Nero should be made, and the fortunate hour marked by the astrologers be arrived. He then (October 13) issued from the palace, … and, being cheered by the cohort which was on guard, he mounted a litter and proceeded to the camp. He addressed the soldiers, promising them a donative, and was saluted emperor. The senate and provinces acquiesced without a murmur in the will of the guards. Claudius was in his 64th year when he was poisoned."

T. Keightley, History of the Roman Empire, part 1, chapter 5.

ALSO IN: C. Merivale, History of the Romans under the Empire, chapter 50 (volume 5).

Tacitus, Annals, books 11-12.

{2706}

ROME: A. D. 54-64. The atrocities of Nero. The murder of his mother. The burning of the city.

"Nero … was but a variety of the same species [as Caligula]. He also was an amateur, and an enthusiastic amateur, of murder. But as this taste, in the most ingenious hands, is limited and monotonous in its modes of manifestation, it would be tedious to run through the long Suetonian roll-call of his peccadilloes in this way. One only we shall cite, to illustrate the amorous delight with which he pursued any murder which happened to be seasoned highly to his taste by enormous atrocity, and by almost unconquerable difficulty. … For certain reasons of state, as Nero attempted to persuade himself, but in reality because no other crime had the same attractions of unnatural horror about it, he resolved to murder his mother Agrippina. This being settled, the next thing was to arrange the mode and the tools. Naturally enough, according to the custom then prevalent in Rome, he first attempted the thing by poison. The poison failed: for Agrippina, anticipating tricks of this kind, had armed her constitution against them, like Mithridates; and daily took potent antidotes and prophylactics. Or else (which is more probable) the emperor's agent in such purposes, fearing his sudden repentance and remorse, … had composed a poison of inferior strength. This had certainly occurred in the case of Britannicus, who had thrown off with ease the first dose administered to him by Nero," but who was killed by a second more powerful potion. "On Agrippina, however, no changes in the poison, whether of kind or strength, had any effect; so that, after various trials, this mode of murder was abandoned, and the emperor addressed himself to other plans. The first of these was some curious mechanical device, by which a false ceiling was to have been suspended by bolts above her bed; and in the middle of the night, the bolt being suddenly drawn, a vast weight would have descended with a ruinous destruction to all below. This scheme, however, taking air from the indiscretion of some amongst the accomplices, reached the ears of Agrippina. … Next, he conceived the idea of an artificial ship, which, at the touch of a few springs, might fall to pieces in deep water. Such a ship was prepared, and stationed at a suitable point. But the main difficulty remained, which was to persuade the old lady to go on board." By complicated stratagems this was brought about. "The emperor accompanied her to the place of embarkation, took a most tender leave of her, and saw her set sail. It was necessary that the vessel should get into deep water before the experiment could be made; and with the utmost agitation this pious son awaited news of the result. Suddenly a messenger rushed breathless into his presence, and horrified him by the joyful information that his august mother had met with an alarming accident; but, by the blessing of Heaven, had escaped safe and sound, and was now on her road to mingle congratulations with her affectionate son. The ship, it seems, had done its office; the mechanism had played admirably; but who can provide for everything? The old lady, it turned out, could swim like a duck; and the whole result had been to refresh her with a little sea-bathing. Here was worshipful intelligence. Could any man's temper be expected to stand such continued sieges? … Of a man like Nero it could not be expected that he should any longer dissemble his disgust, or put up with such repeated affronts. He rushed upon his simple congratulating friend, swore that he had come to murder him, and as nobody could have suborned him but Agrippina, he ordered her off to instant execution. And, unquestionably, if people will not be murdered quietly and in a civil way, they must expect that such forbearance is not to continue for ever; and obviously have themselves only to blame for any harshness or violence which they may have rendered necessary. It is singular, and shocking at the same time, to mention, that, for this atrocity, Nero did absolutely receive solemn congratulations from all orders of men. With such evidences of base servility in the public mind, and of the utter corruption which they had sustained in their elementary feelings, it is the less astonishing that he should have made other experiments upon the public patience, which seem expressly designed to try how much it would support. Whether he were really the author of the desolating fire which consumed Rome for six days and seven nights [A. D. 64], and drove the mass of the people into the tombs and sepulchres for shelter, is yet a matter of some doubt. But one great presumption against it, founded on its desperate imprudence, as attacking the people in their primary comforts, is considerably weakened by the enormous servility of the Romans in the case just stated: they who could volunteer congratulations to a son for butchering his mother (no matter on what pretended suspicions), might reasonably be supposed incapable of any resistance which required courage, even in a case of self-defence or of just revenge. … The great loss on this memorable occasion was in the heraldic and ancestral honours of the city. Historic Rome then went to wreck for ever. Then perished the 'domus priscorum ducum hostilibus ad-huc spoliis adornatæ'; the 'rostral' palace; the mansion of the Pompeys; the Blenheims and the Strathfieldsayes of the Scipios, the Marcelli, the Paulli, and the Cæsars; then perished the aged trophies from Carthage and from Gaul; and, in short, as the historian sums up the lamentable desolation, 'quidquid visendum atque memorabile ex antiquitate duraverat.' And this of itself might lead one to suspect the emperor's hand as the original agent; for by no one act was it possible so entirely and so suddenly to wean the people from their old republican recollections. … In any other sense, whether for health or for the conveniences of polished life, or for architectural magnificence, there never was a doubt that the Roman people gained infinitely by this conflagration. For, like London, it arose from its ashes with a splendour proportioned to its vast expansion of wealth and population; and marble took the place of wood. For the moment, however, this event must have been felt by the people as an overwhelming calamity. {2707} And it serves to illustrate the passive endurance and timidity of the popular temper, and to what extent it might be provoked with impunity, that in this state of general irritation and effervescence Nero absolutely forbade them to meddle with the ruins of their own dwellings—taking that charge upon himself, with a view to the vast wealth which he anticipated from sifting the rubbish."

T. De Quincey, The Cæsars chapter 3.

ALSO IN: _Suetonius, Lives of the Twelve Cæsars: Nero._

Tacitus, Annals, books 13-16.

S. Baring-Gould, The Tragedy of the Cæsars, volume 2.

ROME: A. D. 61. Campaigns of Suetonius Paulinus in Britain.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 61.

ROME: A. D. 64-68. The first persecution of Christians. The fitting end of Nero.

"Nero was so secure in his absolutism, he had hitherto found it so impossible to shock the feelings of the people or to exhaust the terrified adulation of the Senate, that he was usually indifferent to the pasquinades which were constantly holding up his name to execration and contempt. But now [after the burning of Rome] he felt that he had gone too far, and that his power would be seriously imperilled if he did not succeed in diverting the suspicions of the populace. He was perfectly aware that when the people in the streets cursed those who set fire to the city, they meant to curse him. If he did not take some immediate step he felt that he might perish, as Gaius [Caligula], had perished before him, by the dagger of the assassin. It is at this point of his career that Nero becomes a prominent figure in the history of the Church. It was this phase of cruelty which seemed to throw a blood-red light over his whole character, and led men to look on him as the very incarnation of the world-power in its most demoniac aspect—as worse than the Antiochus Epiphanes of Daniel's Apocalypse—as the Man of Sin whom (in language figurative, indeed, yet awfully true) the Lord should slay with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. For Nero endeavoured to fix the odious crime of having destroyed the capital of the world upon the most innocent and faithful of his subjects—upon the only subjects who offered heartfelt prayers on his behalf—the Roman Christians. … Why he should have thought of singling out the Christians, has always been a curious problem, for at this point St. Luke ends the Acts of the Apostles, perhaps purposely dropping the curtain, because it would have been perilous and useless to narrate the horrors in which the hitherto neutral or friendly Roman Government began to play so disgraceful a part. Neither Tacitus, nor Suetonius, nor the Apocalypse, help us to solve this particular problem. The Christians had filled no large space in the eye of the world. Until the days of Domitian we do not hear of a single noble or distinguished person who had joined their ranks. … The slaves and artisans, Jewish and Gentile, who formed the Christian community at Rome, had never in any way come into collision with the Roman Government. … That the Christians were entirely innocent of the crime charged against them was well known both at the time and afterwards. But how was it that Nero sought popularity and partly averted the deep rage which was rankling in many hearts against himself, by torturing men and women, on whose agonies he thought that the populace would gaze not only with a stolid indifference, but even with fierce satisfaction? Gibbon has conjectured that the Christians were confounded with the Jews, and that the detestation universally felt for the latter fell with double force upon the former. Christians suffered even more than the Jews because of the calumnies so assiduously circulated against them, and from what appeared to the ancients to be the revolting absurdity of their peculiar tenets. 'Nero,' says Tacitus, 'exposed to accusation, and tortured with the most exquisite penalties, a set of men detested for their enormities, whom the common people called Christians. Christus, the founder of this sect, was executed during the reign of Tiberius by the Procurator Pontius Pilate, and the deadly superstition, suppressed for a time, began to burst out once more, not only throughout Judaea, where the evil had its root, but even in the City, whither from every quarter all things horrible or shameful are drifted, and find their votaries.' The lordly disdain which prevented Tacitus from making any inquiry into the real views and character of the Christians, is shown by the fact that he catches up the most baseless allegations against them. … The masses, he says, called them 'Christians;' and while he almost apologises for staining his page with so vulgar an appellation, he merely mentions in passing, that, though innocent of the charge of being turbulent incendiaries, on which they were tortured to death, they were yet a set of guilty and infamous sectaries, to be classed with the lowest dregs of Roman criminals. But the haughty historian throws no light on one difficulty, namely, the circumstances which led to the Christians being thus singled out. The Jews were in no way involved in Nero's persecution. … The Jews were by far the deadliest enemies of the Christians; and two persons of Jewish proclivities were at this time in close proximity to the person of the Emperor. One was the pantomimist Aliturus, the other was Poppaea, the harlot Empress. … If, as seems certain, the Jews had it in their power during the reign of Nero more or less to shape the whisper of the throne, does not historical induction drive us to conclude with some confidence that the suggestion of the Christians as scapegoats and victims came from them? … Tacitus tells us that 'those who confessed were first seized, and then on their evidence a huge multitude were convicted, not so much on the charge of incendiarism as for their hatred to mankind.' Compressed and obscure as the sentence is, Tacitus clearly means to imply by the 'confession' to which he alludes the confession of Christianity; and though he is not sufficiently generous to acquit the Christians absolutely of all complicity in the great crime, he distinctly says that they were made the scapegoats of a general indignation. The phrase—'a huge multitude'—is one of the few existing indications of the number of martyrs in the first persecution, and of the number of Christians in the Roman Church. When the historian says that they were convicted on the charge of 'hatred against mankind' he shows how completely he confounds them with the Jews, against whom he elsewhere brings the accusation of 'hostile feelings towards all except themselves.' Then the historian adds one casual but frightful sentence—a sentence which flings a dreadful light on the cruelty of Nero and the Roman mob. {2708} He adds, 'And various forms of mockery were added to enhance their dying agonies. Covered with the skins of wild beasts, they were doomed to die by the mangling of dogs, or by being nailed to crosses; or to be set on fire and burnt after twilight by way of nightly illumination. Nero offered his own gardens for this show, and gave a chariot race, mingling with the mob in the dress of a charioteer, or actually driving about among them. Hence, guilty as the victims were, and deserving of the worst punishments, a feeling of compassion towards them began to rise, as men felt that they were being immolated not for any advantage to the commonwealth, but to glut the savagery of a single man.' Imagine that awful scene, once witnessed by the silent obelisk in the square before St. Peter's at Rome! … Retribution did not linger, and the vengeance fell at once on the guilty Emperor and the guilty city. The air was full of prodigies. There were terrible storms; the plague wrought fearful ravages. Rumours spread from lip to lip. Men spoke of monstrous births; of deaths by lightning under strange circumstances; of a brazen statue of Nero melted by the flash; of places struck by the brand of heaven in fourteen regions of the city; of sudden darkenings of the sun. A hurricane devastated Campania; comets blazed in the heavens; earthquakes shook the ground. On all sides were the traces of deep uneasiness and superstitious terror. To all these portents, which were accepted as true by Christians as well as by Pagans, the Christians would give a specially terrible significance.… In spite of the shocking servility with which alike the Senate and the people had welcomed him back to the city with shouts of triumph, Nero felt that the air of Rome was heavy with curses against his name. He withdrew to Naples, and was at supper there on March 19, A. D. 68, the anniversary of his mother's murder, when he heard that the first note of revolt had been sounded by the brave C. Julius Vindex, Præfect of Farther Gaul. He was so far from being disturbed by the news, that he showed a secret joy at the thought that he could now order Gaul to be plundered. For eight days he took no notice of the matter. … At last, when he heard that Virginius Rufus had also rebelled in Germany, and Galba in Spain, he became aware of the desperate nature of his position. On receiving this intelligence he fainted away, and remained for some time unconscious. He continued, indeed, his grossness and frivolity, but the wildest and fiercest schemes chased each other through his melodramatic brain. … Meanwhile he found that the palace had been deserted by his guards, and that his attendants had robbed his chamber even of the golden box in which he had stored his poison. Rushing out, as though to drown himself in the Tiber, he changed his mind, and begged for some quiet hiding-place in which to collect his thoughts. The freedman Phaon offered him a lowly villa about four miles from the city. Barefooted, and with a faded coat thrown over his tunic, he hid his head and face in a kerchief, and rode away with only four attendants. … There is no need to dwell on the miserable spectacle of his end, perhaps the meanest and most pusillanimous which has ever been recorded. The poor wretch who, without a pang, had caused so many brave Romans and so many innocent Christians to be murdered, could not summon up resolution to die. … Meanwhile a courier arrived for Phaon. Nero snatched his despatches out of his hand, and read that the Senate had decided that he should be punished in the ancestral fashion as a public enemy. Asking what the ancestral fashion was, he was informed that he would be stripped naked and scourged to death with rods, with his head thrust into a fork. Horrified at this, he seized two daggers, and after theatrically trying their edges, sheathed them again, with the excuse that the fatal moment had not yet arrived! Then he bade Sporus begin to sing his funeral song, and begged some one to show him how to die. … The sound of horses' hoofs then broke on his ears, and, venting one more Greek quotation, he held the dagger to his throat. It was driven home by Epaphroditus, one of his literary slaves. … So died the last of the Cæsars! And as Robespierre was lamented by his landlady, so even Nero was tenderly buried by two nurses who had known him in the exquisite beauty of his engaging childhood, and by Acte, who had inspired his youth with a genuine love."

F. W. Farrar, The Early Days of Christianity, book 1, chapter 4.

ALSO IN: T. W. Allies, The Formation of Christendom, chapter 10 (volume 2).

ROME: A. D. 68-96. End of the Julian line. The "Twelve Cæsars" and their successors. A logical classification.

"In the sixth Caesar [Nero] terminated the Julian line. The three next princes in the succession were personally uninteresting; and, with a slight reserve in favor of Otho, … were even brutal in the tenor of their lives and monstrous; besides that the extreme brevity of their several reigns (all three, taken conjunctly, having held the supreme power for no more than twelve months and twenty days) dismisses them from all effectual station or right to a separate notice in the line of Caesars. Coming to the tenth in the succession, Vespasian, and his two sons, Titus and Domitian, who make up the list of the twelve Caesars, as they are usually called, we find matter for deeper political meditation and subjects of curious research. But these emperors would be more properly classed with the five who succeed them—Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, and the two Antonines; after whom comes the young ruffian, Commodus, another Caligula or Nero, from whose short and infamous reign Gibbon takes up his tale of the decline of the empire. And this classification would probably have prevailed, had not the very curious work of Suetonius, whose own life and period of observation determined the series and cycle of his subjects, led to a different distribution. But as it is evident that, in the succession of the first twelve Caesars, the six latter have no connection whatever by descent, collaterally, or otherwise, with the six first, it would be a more logical distribution to combine them according to the fortunes of the state itself, and the succession of its prosperity through the several stages of splendour, declension, revival, and final decay. Under this arrangement, the first seventeen would belong to the first stage; Commodus would open the second; Aurelian down to Constantine or Julian would fill the third; and Jovian to Agustulus would bring up the melancholy rear."

T. De Quincey, The Cæsars, chapter 3.

ROME: A. D. 69. Revolt of the Batavians under Civilis.

See BATAVIANS: A. D. 69.

{2709}

ROME: A. D. 69. Galba, Otho, Vitellius. Vespasian. The Vitellian conflict.

On the overthrow and death of Nero, June, A. D. 68, the veteran soldier Galba, proclaimed imperator by his legions in Spain, and accepted by the Roman senate, mounted the imperial throne. His brief reign was terminated in January of the following year by a sudden revolt of the prætorian guard, instigated by Salvius Otho, one of the profligate favorites of Nero, who had betrayed his former patron and was disappointed in the results. Galba was slain and Otho made emperor, to reign, in his turn, for a brief term of three months. Revolt against Otho was quick to show itself in the provinces, east and west. The legions on the Rhine set up a rival emperor, in the person of their commander, Aulus Vitellius, whose single talent was in gluttony, and who had earned by his vices the favor of four beastly rulers, from Tiberius to Nero, in succession. Gaul having declared in his favor, Vitellius sent forward two armies by different routes into Italy. Otho met them, with such forces as he could gather, at Bedriacum, between Verona and Cremona, and suffered there a defeat which he accepted as decisive. He slew himself, and Vitellius made his way to Rome without further opposition, permitting his soldiers to plunder the country as they advanced. But the armies of the east were not disposed to accept an emperor by the election of the armies of the west, and they, too, put forward a candidate for the purple. Their choice was better guided, for it fell on the sturdy soldier, Titus Flavius Vespasianus, then commanding in Judea. The advance corps of the forces supporting Vespasian (called "Flavians," or "Flavianites") entered Cisalpine Gaul from Illyricum in the autumn of 69, and encountered the Vitellians at Bedriacum, on the same field where the latter had defeated the Othonians a few weeks before. The Vitellians were defeated. Cremona, a flourishing Roman colony, which capitulated to the conquerors, was perfidiously given up to a merciless soldiery and totally destroyed,—one temple, alone, escaping. Vitellius, in despair, showed an eagerness to resign the throne, and negotiated his resignation with a brother of Vespasian, residing in Rome. But the mob of fugitive Vitellian soldiers which had collected in the capital interposed violently to prevent this abdication. Flavius Sabinus—the brother of Vespasian—took refuge, with his supporters, in the Capitolium, or temple of Jupiter, on the Capitoline Hill. But the sacred precincts were stormed by the Vitellian mob, the Capitol—the august sanctuary of Rome—was burned and Sabinus was slain. The army which had won the victory for Vespasian at Bedriacum, commanded by Antonius Primus, soon appeared at the gates of the city, to avenge this outrage. The unorganized force which attempted opposition was driven before it in worse disorder. Victors and vanquished poured into Rome together, slaughtering and being slaughtered in the streets. The rabble of the city joined in the bloody hunt, and in the plundering that went with it. "Rome had seen the conflicts of armed men in the streets under Sulla and Cinna, but never before such a hideous mixture of levity and ferocity." Vitellius was among the slain, his brief reign ending on the 21st of December, A. D. 69. Vespasian was still in the east, and did not enter Rome until the summer of the following year.

Tacitus, History, book 1-3.

ALSO IN: C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapters 56-57.

ROME: A. D. 70. Siege and destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.

See JEWS: A. D. 66-70.

ROME: A. D. 70-96. The Flavian family. Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian.

"Unfortunately Tacitus fails us … at this point, and this time completely. Nothing has been saved of his 'Histories' from the middle of the year 70, and we find ourselves reduced to the mere biographies of Suetonius, to the fragments of Dion, to the abridgments of Aurelius Victor and Eutropius. The majestic stream from which we have drawn and which flowed with brimming banks is now only a meagre thread of water. Of all the emperors Vespasian is the one who loses the most by this, for he was, says S. Augustine, a very good prince and very worthy of being beloved. He came into power at an age when one is no longer given to change, at 60 years. He had never been fond of gaming or debauchery, and he maintained his health by a frugal diet, even passing one day every month without eating. His life was simple and laborious. … He had no higher aim than to establish order in the state and in the finances; but he accomplished this, and if his principate, like all the others, made no preparations for the future, it did much for the present. It was a restorative reign, the effects of which were felt for several generations; this service is as valuable as the most brilliant victories. Following the example of the second Julius, the first of the Flavians resolved to seek in the senate the support of his government. This assembly, debased by so many years of tyranny, needed as much as it did a century before to be submitted to a severe revision. … Vespasian acted with resolution. Invested with the title of censor in 73, with his son Titus for colleague, he struck from the rolls of the two orders the members deemed unworthy, replaced them by the most distinguished persons of the Empire, and, by virtue of his powers as sovereign pontiff, raised several of them to the patriciate. A thousand Italian or provincial families came to be added to the 200 aristocratic families which had survived, and constituted with these the higher Roman society, from which the candidates for all civil, military, and religious functions were taken. … This aristocracy, borrowed by Vespasian from the provincial cities, where it had been trained to public affairs, where it had acquired a taste for economy, simplicity, and order, brought into Rome pure morals. … It will furnish the great emperors of the second century, the skilled lieutenants who will second them, and senators who will hereafter conspire only at long intervals. … To the senate, thus renewed and become the true representation of the Empire, Vespasian submitted all important matters. … Suetonius renders him this testimony, that it would be difficult to cite a single individual unjustly punished in his reign, at least unless it were in his absence or without his knowledge. He loved to dispense justice himself in the Forum. … The legions, who had made and unmade five emperors in two years, were no longer attentive to the ancient discipline. He brought them back to it. … The morals of the times were bad; he did more than the laws to reform them—he set good examples. … {2710} Augustus had raised two altars to Peace; Vespasian built a temple to her, in which he deposited the most precious spoils of Jerusalem; and … the old general closed, for the sixth time, the doors of the temple of Janus. He built a forum surrounded by colonnades, in addition to those already existing, and commenced, in the midst of the city, the vast amphitheatre, a mountain of stone, of which three-fourths remain standing to-day. … A colossal statue raised near by for Nero, but which Vespasian consecrated to the Sun, gave it its name, the Coliseum. … We have no knowledge of the wars of Vespasian, except that three times in the year 71 he assumed the title of 'imperator,' and three times again the following year. But when we see him making Cappadocia an imperial proconsular province with numerous garrisons to check the incursions which desolated it; and, towards the Danube, extending his influence over the barbarians even beyond the Borysthenes; when we read in Tacitus that Velleda, the prophetess of the Bructeri, was at that time brought a captive to Rome; that Cerialis vanquished the Brigantes and Frontinus the Silures, we must believe that Vespasian made a vigorous effort along the whole line of his outposts to impress upon foreign nations respect for the Roman name. … Here is the secret of that severe economy which appeared to the prodigal and light-minded a shameful stinginess. … Vespasian … was 69 years old, and was at his little house in the territory of Reate when he felt the approach of death. 'I feel that I am becoming a god,' he said to those around him, laughing in advance at his apotheosis. … 'An emperor,' he said, 'ought to die standing.' He attempted to rise and expired in this effort, on the 23rd of June, 79. The first plebeian emperor has had no historian, but a few words of his biographer suffice for his renown: 'rem publicam stabilivit et ornavit,' 'by him the State was strengthened and glorified.' … Vespasian being dead, Titus assumed the title of Augustus. … His father had prepared him for this by taking him as associate in the Empire; he had given to him the title of Cæsar, the censorship, the tribunitian power, the prefecture of the prætorium, and seven consulates. Coming into power at the age of maturity, rich in experience and satiated with pleasures by his very excesses, he had henceforth but one passion, that of the public welfare. At the outset he dismissed his boon companions; in his father's lifetime he had already sacrificed to Roman prejudices his tender sentiments for the Jewish queen Berenice, whom he had sent back to the East. In taking possession of the supreme pontificate he declared that he would keep his hands pure from blood, and he kept his word: no one under his reign perished by his orders." It was during the short reign of Titus that Herculaneum and Pompeii were overwhelmed by an eruption of Vesuvius (August 23, A. D. 79), while other calamities afflicted Italy. "Pestilence carried off thousands of people even in Rome [see PLAGUE: A. D. 78-266]; and at last a conflagration, which raged three days, consumed once more the Capitol, the library of Augustus, and Pompey's theatre. To Campania Titus sent men of consular rank with large sums of money, and he devoted to the relief of the survivors the property that had fallen to the treasury through the death of those who had perished in the disaster without leaving heirs. At Rome he took upon himself the work of repairing everything, and to provide the requisite funds he sold the furniture of the imperial palace. … This reign lasted only 26 months, from the 23rd of June, A. D. 79, to the 13th of September, A. D. 81. As Titus was about to visit his paternal estate in the Sabine territory he was seized by a violent fever, which soon left no hope of his recovery. There is a report that he partly opened the curtains of his litter and gazed at the sky with eyes full of tears and reproaches. 'Why,' he exclaimed, 'must I die so soon? In all my life I have, however, but one thing to repent.' What was this? No one knows." Titus was succeeded by his brother Domitian, then thirty years old. "The youth of Domitian had been worthy of the times of Nero, and he had wearied his father and brother by his intrigues. Nevertheless he was sober, to the extent of taking but one meal a day, and he had a taste for military exercises, for study and poetry, especially since the elevation of his family. Vespasian had granted him honours, but no power, and, at the death of Titus, he had only the titles of Cæsar and Prince of the Youth. In his hurry to seize at last that Empire so long coveted, he abandoned his dying brother to rush to Rome, to the camp of the prætorians. … On the day of their coronation there are few bad princes. Almost all begin well, but, in despotic monarchies, the majority end badly, particularly when the reigns are of long duration. … Domitian reigned 15 years, one year longer than Nero, and his reign reproduced the same story: at first it wise government, then every excess. Happily the excesses did not come till late. … Fully as vain as the son of Agrippina, Domitian heaped every title upon his own head and decreed deification to himself. His edicts stated: 'Our lord and our god ordains … ' The new god did not scorn vulgar honours. … He was consul 17 times, and 22 times did he have himself proclaimed 'imperator' for victories that had not always been gained. He recalled Nero too by his fondness for shows and for building. … There were several wars under Domitian, all defensive excepting the expedition against the Catti [see CHATTI], which was only a great civil measure to drive away the hostile marauders from the frontier. If Pliny the Younger and Tacitus are to be believed, these wars were like those which Caligula waged: Domitian's victories were defeats; his captives, purchased slaves; his triumphs, audacious falsehoods. Suetonius is not so severe. … Domitian's cruelty appeared especially, and perhaps we should say only, after the revolt of a person of high rank, Antonius Saturninus, who pretended to be a descendant of the triumvir. … He was in command of two legions in Germany whom he incited to revolt, and he called the Germans to his aid. An unexpected thaw stopped this tribe on the right bank of the Rhine, while Appius Norbanus Maximus, governor of Aquitania, crushed Antonius on the opposite shore. … This revolt must belong to the year 93, which, as Pliny says, is that in which Domitian's great cruelties began. … Domitian lived in a state of constant alarm; every sound terrified him, every man seemed to him an assassin, every occurrence was an omen of evil." He endured this life of gloomy terror for three years, when his dread forebodings were realized, and he was murdered by his own attendants, September 18, A. D. 96.

V. Duruy, History of Rome, chapters 77-78 (volume 4).

ALSO IN: _Suetonius, Lives of the Twelve Cæsars: Vespasian, Titus, Domitian._

C. Merivale, History of the Romans under the Empire, chapters 57-60 (volumes 6-7).

{2711}

ROME: A. D. 78-84. Campaigns of Agricola in Britain.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 78-84.

ROME: A. D. 96-138. Brief reign of Nerva.- Adoption and succession of Trajan. His persecution of Christians. His conquests beyond the Danube and in the east. Hadrian's relinquishment of them.

"On the same day on which Domitian was assassinated, M. Cocceius Nerva was proclaimed Emperor by the Prætorians, and confirmed by the people. He owed his elevation principally to Petronius, Prefect of the Prætorians, and Parthenius, chamberlain to the late Emperor. He was of Cretan origin, and a native of Narni in Umbria, and consequently the first Emperor who was not of Italian descent. … He was prudent, upright, generous, and of a gentle temper; but a feeble frame and weak constitution, added to the burden of 64 years, rendered him too reserved, timid, and irresolute for the arduous duties of a sovereign prince. … The tolerant and reforming administration of the new Emperor soon became popular. Rome breathed again after the bloody tyranny under which she had been trampled to the dust. The perjured 'delator' was threatened with the severest penalties. The treacherous slave who had denounced his master was put to death. Exiles returned to their native cities, and again enjoyed their confiscated possessions. … Determined to administer the government for the benefit of the Roman people, he (Nerva) turned his attention to the question of finance, and to the burdensome taxation which was the fruit of the extravagance of his predecessors. … He diminished the enormous sums which were lavished upon shows and spectacles, and reduced, as far as was possible, his personal and household expenses. … It was not probable that an Emperor of so weak and yielding a character, notwithstanding his good qualities as a prince and a statesman, would be acceptable to a licentious and dominant soldiery. But a few months had elapsed when a conspiracy was organized against him by Calpurnius Crassus. It was, however, discovered; and the ringleader, having confessed his crime, experienced the Emperor's usual generosity, being only punished by banishment to Tarentum. … Meanwhile the Prætorians, led on by Ælianus Carperius, who had been their Prefect under Domitian, besieged Nerva in his palace, with cries of vengeance upon the assassins of his predecessor, murdered Petronius and Parthenius, and compelled the timid Emperor publicly to express his approbation of the deed, and to testify his obligation to them for wreaking vengeance on the guilty. … Nerva was in declining years, and, taught by circumstances that he was unequal to curb or cope with the insolence of the soldiery, adopted Trojan as his son and successor [A. D. 97]. Soon after, he conferred upon him in the Senate the rank of Cæsar, and the name of Germanicus, and added the tribuneship and the title of Emperor. This act calmed the tumult, and was welcomed with the unanimous consent of the Senate and the people. … Soon after the adoption of Trajan he died of a fit of ague which brought on fever, at the gardens of Sallust, after a reign of sixteen months, in the sixty-sixth year of his age [A. D. 98]. … The choice which Nerva had made proved a fortunate one. M. Ulpius Nerva Trajanus was a Spaniard, a native of Italica, near Seville. … He was of an ancient and distinguished family, and his father had filled the office of consul. Although a foreigner, he was a Roman in habits, sympathies, and language; for the south of Spain had become so completely Roman that the inhabitants generally spoke Latin. When a young man he had distinguished himself in a war against the Parthians. … At the time of his adoption by Nerva he was in command of a powerful army in Lower Germany, his head-quarters being at Cologne. He was in the prime of life, possessed of a robust constitution, a commanding figure, and a majestic countenance. He was a perfect soldier, by taste and education, and was endowed with all the qualities of a general. … He was a strict disciplinarian, but he knew all his veterans, spoke to them by their names, and never let a gallant action pass unrewarded. … The news of Nerva's death was conveyed to him at Cologne by his cousin Hadrian, where he immediately received the imperial power. During the first year of his reign he remained with the army in Germany, engaged in establishing the discipline of the troops and in inspiring them with a love of their duty. … The ensuing year he made his entry into Rome on foot, together with his empress, Pompeia Plotina, whose amiability and estimable character contributed much to the popularity of her husband. Her conduct, together with that of his sister, Marciana, exercised a most beneficial influence upon Roman society. They were the first ladies of the imperial court who by their example checked the shameless licentiousness which had long prevailed amongst women of the higher classes. … The tastes and habits of his former life led to a change in the peaceful policy which had so long prevailed. The first war in which he was engaged was with the Dacians, who inhabited the country beyond the Danube. …

See DACIA: A. D. 102-106.

A few years of peace ensued, which Trajan endured with patient reluctance; and many great public works undertaken during the interval show his genius for civil as well as for military administration. … But his presence was soon required in the East, and he joyfully hailed the opportunity thus offered him for gaining fresh laurels. The real object of this expedition was ambition—the pretext, that Exedarius, or Exodares, king of Armenia, had received the crown from the king of Parthia, instead of from the Emperor of Rome, as Tiridates had from the hands of Nero. For this insult he demanded satisfaction. Chosroes, the king of Parthia, at first treated his message with contempt; but afterwards, seeing that war was imminent, he sent ambassadors with presents to meet Trajan at Athens, and to announce to him the deposition of Exedarius, and to entreat him to confer the crown of Armenia upon Parthamasiris, or Parthamaspes. Trajan received the ambassadors coldly, told them that he was on his march to Syria, and would there act as he thought fit. Accordingly he crossed into Asia, and marched by way of Cilicia, Syria, and Seleucia to Antioch. {2712} The condemnation of the martyr bishop St. Ignatius marked his stay in that city [A. D. 115]. It seems strange that the persecution of the Christians should have met with countenance and support from an emperor like Trajan; but the fact is, the Roman mind could not separate the Christian from the Jew. The religious distinction was beneath their notice; they contemplated the former merely as a sect of the latter. The Roman party in Asia were persuaded that the Jews were meditating and preparing for insurrection; and the rebellions of this and the ensuing reign proved that their apprehensions were not unreasonable. Hence, at Antioch, the imperial influence was on the side of persecution; and hence when Pliny, the gentle governor of Pontus and Bithynia, wrote to Trajan for instructions respecting the Christians in his province, his 'rescript' spoke of Christianity as a dangerous superstition, and enjoined the punishment of its professors if discovered, although he would not have them sought for. Having received the voluntary sub·mission of Abgarns, prince of Osrhoene in Mesopotamia, he marched against Armenia. Parthamasiris, who had assumed the royal state, laid his diadem at his feet, in the hopes that he would return it to him as Nero had to Tiridates. Trajan claimed his kingdom as a province of the Roman people, and the unfortunate monarch lost his life in a useless struggle for his crown. This was the commencement of his triumphs: he received the voluntary submission of the kings of Iberia, Sarmatia, the Bosphorus, Colchis, Albania; and he assigned kings to most of the barbarous tribes that inhabited the coast of the Euxine. Still he proceeded on his career of conquest. He chastised the king of Adiabene, who had behaved to him with treachery, and took possession of his dominions, subjugated the rest of Mesopotamia, constructed a bridge of boats over the Tigris, and commenced a canal to unite the two great rivers of Assyria. His course of conquest was resistless; he captured Seleucia, earned the title of Parthicus by taking Ctesiphon, the capital of Parthia [A. D. 116], imposed a tribute on Mesopotamia, and reduced Assyria to the condition of a Roman province. He returned to winter at Antioch, which was in the same winter almost destroyed by an earthquake. Trajan escaped through a window, not without personal injury. … The river Tigris bore the victorious Emperor from the scene of his conquest down to the Persian Gulf; he subjugated Arabia Felix, and, like a second Alexander, was meditating and even making preparations for an invasion of India by sea; but his ambitious designs were frustrated by troubles nearer at hand. Some of the conquered nations revolted, and his garrisons were either expelled or put to the sword. He sent his generals to crush the rebels; one of them, Maximus, was conquered and slain; the other, Lusius Quietus, gained considerable advantages and was made governor of Palestine, which had begun to be in a state of insurrection.

See JEWS: A. D. 116.

He himself marched to punish the revolted Hagareni (Saracens), whose city was called Atra, in Mesopotamia. … Trajan laid siege to it, but was obliged to raise the siege with great loss. Soon after this he was seized with illness. … Leaving his army therefore to the care of Hadrian, whom he had made governor of Syria, he embarked for Rome at the earnest solicitation of the Senate. On arriving at Selinus in Cilicia (afterwards named Trajanopolis), he was seized with diarrhœa, and expired in the twentieth year of his reign [August, A. D. 117]. … He died childless, and it is said had not intended to nominate a successor, following in this the example of Alexander. Hadrian owed his adoption to Plotina. … Dio positively asserts that she concealed her husband's death for some days, and that the letter informing the Senate of his last intentions was signed by her, and not by Trajan. Hadrian received the despatches declaring his adoption on the 9th of August, and those announcing Trajan's death two days afterwards. … As soon as he was proclaimed Emperor at Antioch, he sent an apologetic despatch to the Senate requesting their assent to his election; the army, he said, had chosen him without waiting for their sanction, lest the Republic should remain without a prince. The confirmation which he asked for was immediately granted. … The state of Roman affairs was at this moment a very critical one, and did not permit the new Emperor to leave the East. Emboldened by the news of Trajan's illness, the conquered Parthians had revolted and achieved some great successes; Sarmatia on the north, Mauritania, Egypt, and Syria on the south, were already in a state of insurrection. The far-sighted prudence of Hadrian led him to fear that the empire was not unlikely to fall to pieces by its own weight, and that the Euphrates was its best boundary. It was doubtless a great sacrifice to surrender all the rich and populous provinces beyond that river which had been gained by the arms of his predecessor. It was no coward fear or mean envy of Trajan which prompted Hadrian, but he wisely felt that it was worth any price to purchase peace and security. Accordingly he withdrew the Roman armies from Armenia, Assyria and Mesopotamia, constituted the former of these an independent kingdom, surrendered the two latter to the Parthians, and restored their deposed king Chosroes to his throne. … After taking these measures for establishing peace in the East, he left Catilius Severus governor of Syria, and returned by way of Illyria to Rome, where he arrived the following year. … A restless curiosity, which was one of the principal features in his character, would not permit him to remain inactive at Rome; he determined to make a personal survey of every province throughout his vast dominions, and for this reason he is so frequently represented on medals as the Roman Hercules. He commenced his travels with Gaul, thence he proceeded to Germany, where he established order and discipline amongst the Roman forces, and then crossed over to Britain. … It would be uninteresting to give a mere catalogue of the countries which he visited during the ensuing ten years of his reign. In the fifteenth winter of it he arrived in Egypt, and rebuilt the tomb of Pompey the Great at Pelusium. Thence he proceeded to Alexandria which was at that period the university of the world. … He had scarcely passed through Syria when the Jews revolted, and continued in arms for three years. …

See JEWS: A. D. 130-134.

{2713}

Hadrian spent the winter at Athens, where he gratified his architectural taste by completing the temple of Jupiter Olympius. … Conscious … of the infirmities of disease and of advancing years, he adopted L. Aurelius Verus, a man of pleasure and of weak and delicate health, totally unfit for his new position. … Age and disease had now so altered his [Hadrian's] character that he became luxurious, self-indulgent, suspicious, and even cruel: Verus did not live two years, and the Emperor then adopted Titus Antoninus, on condition that he should in his turn adopt M. Annius Verus, afterwards called M. Aurelius, and the son of Aurelius Verus." Hadrian's malady "now became insupportably painful, his temper savage even to madness, and many lives of senators and others were sacrificed to his fury. His sufferings were so excruciating that he was always begging his attendants to put him to death. At last he went to Baiæ, where, setting at defiance the prescriptions of his physicians, he ate and drank what he pleased. Death, therefore, soon put a period to his sufferings, in the sixty-third year of his age and the twenty-first of his restless reign [A. D. 138]. Antoninus was present at his death, his corpse was burnt at Puteoli (Pozzuoli), and his ashes deposited in the mausoleum (moles Hadriani) which he had himself built, and which is now the Castle of St. Angelo."

R. W. Browne, History of Rome from A. D. 96, chapters 1-2.

ALSO IN: C. Merivale, History of the Romans under the Empire, chapters 63-66 (volume 7).

T. Arnold and others, History of the Roman Empire (Encyclopædia Metropolitana). chapters 4-6.

[IMAGE: THE ROMAN EMPIRE AT ITS GREATEST EXTENT UNDER TRAJAN (116) SHOWING ACQUISITIONS OF TERRITORY FROM THE ACCESSION OR AUGUSTUS. ROMAN TERRITORY AT THE ACCESSION OF AUGUSTUS. TERRITORY ACQUIRED TO THE ACCESSION or TRAJAN.

THE TEMPORARY CONQUESTS OF TRAJAN ARE SHOWN BY THE BORDER COLOR.

THE ACQUISITIONS OF THE DIFFERENT EMPERORS ARE INDICATED BY THE LETTERING.]

ROME: A. D. 138-180. The Antonines. Antoninus Pius. Marcus Aurelius.

"On the death of Hadrian in A. D. 138, Antoninus Pius succeeded to the throne, and, in accordance with the late Emperor's conditions, adopted Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Commodus. Marcus had been betrothed at the age of 15 to the sister of Lucius Commodus, but the new Emperor broke off the engagement, and betrothed him instead to his daughter Faustina. The marriage, however, was not celebrated till seven years afterwards, A. D. 146. The long reign of Antoninus Pius is one of those happy periods that have no history. An almost unbroken peace reigned at home and abroad. Taxes were lightened, calamities relieved, informers discouraged; confiscations were rare, plots and executions were almost unknown. Throughout the whole extent of his vast domain the people loved and valued their Emperor, and the Emperor's one aim was to further the happiness of his people. He, too, like Aurelius, had learnt that what was good for the bee was good for the hive. … He disliked war, did not value the military title of Imperator, and never deigned to accept a triumph. With this wise and eminent prince, who was as amiable in his private relations as he was admirable in the discharge of his public duties, Marcus Aurelius spent the next 23 years of his life. … There was not a shade of jealousy between them; each was the friend and adviser of the other, and, so far from regarding his destined heir with suspicion, the Emperor gave him the designation 'Cæsar,' and heaped upon him all the honours of the Roman commonwealth. It was in vain that the whisper of malignant tongues attempted to shake this mutual confidence. … In the year 161, when Marcus was now 40 years old. Antoninus Pius, who had reached the age of 75, caught a fever at Lorium. Feeling that his end was near, he summoned his friends and the chief men of Rome to his bedside, and there (without saying a word about his other adopted son, who is generally known by the name of Lucius Verus) solemnly recommended Marcus to them as his successor; and then, giving to the captain of the guard the watchword of 'Equanimity,' as though his earthly task was over he ordered to be transferred to the bedroom of Marcus the little golden statue of Fortune, which was kept in the private chamber of the Emperors as an omen of public prosperity. The very first act of the new Emperor was one of splendid generosity, namely, the admission of his adoptive brother Lucius Verus into the fullest participation of imperial honours. … The admission of Lucius Verus to a share of the Empire was due to the innate modesty of Marcus. As he was a devoted student, and cared less for manly exercises, in which Verus excelled, he thought that his adoptive brother would be a better and more useful general than himself, and that he could best serve the State by retaining the civil administration, and entrusting to his brother the management of war. Verus, however, as soon as he got away from the immediate influence and ennobling society of Marcus, broke loose from all decency, and showed himself to be a weak and worthless personage. … Two things only can be said in his favour; the one, that, though depraved, he was wholly free from cruelty; and the other, that he had the good sense to submit himself entirely to his brother. … Marcus had a large family by Faustina, and in the first year of his reign his wife bore twins, of whom the one who survived became the wicked and detested Emperor Commodus. As though the birth of such a child were in itself an omen of ruin, a storm of calamity began at once to burst over the long tranquil State. An inundation of the Tiber … caused a distress which ended in wide-spread famine. Men's minds were terrified by earthquakes, by the burning of cities, and by plagues of noxious insects. To these miseries, which the Emperors did their best to alleviate, was added the horror of wars and rumours of wars. The Parthians, under their king Vologeses, defeated and all but destroyed a Roman army, and devastated with impunity the Roman province of Syria. The wild tribes of the Catti burst over Germany with fire and sword; and the news from Britain was full of insurrection and tumult. Such were the elements of trouble and discord which overshadowed the reign of Marcus Aurelius from its very beginning down to its weary close. As the Parthian war was the most important of the three, Verus was sent to quell it, and but for the ability of his generals—the greatest of whom was Avidius Cassius—would have ruined irretrievably the fortunes of the Empire. These generals, however, vindicated the majesty of the Roman name [A. D. 165-166 —see PARTHIA], and Verus returned in triumph, bringing back with him from the East the seeds, of a terrible pestilence which devastated the whole Empire [see PLAGUE: A. D. 78-266] and by which, on the outbreak of fresh wars, Verus himself was carried off at Aquileia. … Marcus was now the undisputed lord of the Roman world. … But this imperial elevation kindled no glow of pride or self-satisfaction in his meek and chastened nature. He regarded himself as being in fact the servant of all. … He was one of those who held that nothing should be done hastily, and that few crimes were worse than the waste of time. {2714} It is to such views and such habits that we owe the composition of his works. His 'Meditations' were written amid the painful self-denial and distracting anxieties of his wars with the Quadi and the Marcomanni [A. D. 168-180,—see SARMATIAN AND MARCOMANNIAN WARS OF MARCUS AURELIUS], and he was the author of other works which unhappily have perished. Perhaps of all the lost treasures of antiquity there are few which we should feel a greater wish to recover than the lost autobiography of this wisest of Emperors and holiest of Pagan men. … The Court was to Marcus a burden; he tells us himself that Philosophy was his mother, Empire only his stepmother; it was only his repose in the one that rendered even tolerable to him the burdens of the other. … The most celebrated event of the war [with the Quadi] took place in a great victory … which he won in A. D. 174, and which was attributed by the Christians to what is known as the 'Miracle of the Thundering Legion.' …

See THUNDERING LEGION.

To the gentle heart of Marcus all war, even when accompanied with victories, was eminently distasteful; and in such painful and ungenial occupations no small part of his life was passed. … It was his unhappy destiny not to have trodden out the embers of this [the Sarmatian] war before he was burdened with another far more painful and formidable. This was the revolt of Avidius Cassius, a general of the old blunt Roman type, whom, in spite of some ominous warnings, Marcus both loved and trusted. The ingratitude displayed by such a man caused Marcus the deepest anguish; but he was saved from all dangerous consequences by the wide-spread affection which he had inspired by his virtuous reign. The very soldiers of the rebellious general fell away from him, and, after he had been a nominal Emperor for only three months and six days, he was assassinated by some of his own officers. … Marcus travelled through the provinces which had favoured the cause of Avidius Cassius, and treated them all with the most complete and indulgent forbearance. … During this journey of pacification, he lost his wife Faustina, who died suddenly in one of the valleys of Mount Taurus. History … has assigned to Faustina a character of the darkest infamy, and it has even been made a charge against Aurelius that he overlooked or condoned her offences. … No doubt Faustina was unworthy of her husband; but surely it is the glory and not the shame of a noble nature to be averse from jealousy and suspicion. … 'Marcus Aurelius cruelly persecuted the Christians.' Let us briefly consider this charge. … Marcus in his 'Meditations' alludes to the Christians once only, and then it is to make a passing complaint of the indifference to death, which appeared to him, as it appeared to Epictetus, to arise, not from any noble principles, but from mere obstinacy and perversity. That he shared the profound dislike with which Christians were regarded is very probable. That he was a cold-blooded and virulent persecutor is utterly unlike his whole character. … The true state of the case seems to have been this: The deep calamities in which during the whole reign of Marcus the Empire was involved, caused wide-spread distress, and roused into peculiar fury the feelings of the provincials against men whose atheism (for such they considered it to be) had kindled the anger of the gods. … Marcus, when appealed to, simply let the existing law take its course. … The martyrdoms took place in Gaul and Asia Minor, not in Rome. … The persecution of the churches in Lyons and Vienne happened in A. D. 177. Shortly after this period fresh wars recalled the Emperor to the North. … He was worn out with the toils, trials and travels of his long and weary life. He sunk under mental anxieties and bodily fatigues, and after a brief illness died in Pannonia, either at Vienna or at Sirmium, on March 17, A. D. 180, in the 59th year of his age and the 20th of his reign."

_F. W. Farrar, Seekers after God: Marcus Aurelius._

"One moment, thanks to him, the world was governed by the best and greatest man of his age. Frightful decadences followed; but the little casket which contained the 'Thoughts' on the banks of the Granicus was saved. From it came forth that incomparable book in which Epictetus was surpassed, that Evangel of those who believe not in the supernatural, which has not been comprehended until our day. Veritable, eternal Evangel, the book of 'Thoughts,' which will never grow old, because it asserts no dogma."

_E. Renan, English Conferences: Marcus Aurelius._

ALSO IN: _W. W. Capes, The Age of the Antonines._

C. Merivale, History of the Romans under the Empire, chapters 67-68 (volume 7).

_P. B. Watson, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus._

G. Long, Thoughts of the Emperor M. Aurelius Antoninus, introduction.

ROME: A. D. 180-192. The reign of Commodus.

"If a man were called to fix the period in the history of the world during which the condition of the human race was most happy and prosperous, he would, without hesitation, name that which elapsed from the death of Domitian to the accession of Commodus. The vast extent of the Roman empire was governed by absolute power, under the guidance of virtue and wisdom. The armies were restrained by the firm but gentle hand of four successive emperors whose characters and authority commanded involuntary respect. … It has been objected to Marcus, that he sacrificed the happiness of millions to a fond partiality for a worthless boy; and that he chose a successor in his own family rather than in the republic. Nothing, however, was neglected by the anxious father, and by the men of virtue and learning whom he summoned to his assistance, to expand the narrow mind of young Commodus, to correct his growing vices, and to render him worthy of the throne for which he was designed. … The beloved son of Marcus succeeded to his father, amidst the acclamations of the senate and armies; and when he ascended the throne, the happy youth saw round him neither competitor to remove, nor enemies to punish. In this calm elevated station it was surely natural that he should prefer the love of mankind to their detestation, the mild glories of his five predecessors to the ignominious fate of Nero and Domitian. Yet Commodus was not, as he has been represented, a tiger born with an insatiate thirst of human blood, and capable, from his infancy, of the most inhuman actions. Nature had formed him of a weak, rather than a wicked disposition. His simplicity and timidity rendered him the slave of his attendants, who gradually corrupted his mind. His cruelty, which at first obeyed the dictates of others, degenerated into habit, and at length became the ruling passion of his soul. … {2715} During the three first years of his reign, the forms, and even the spirit, of the old administration were maintained by those faithful counsellors to whom Marcus had recommended his son, and for whose wisdom and integrity Commodus still entertained a reluctant esteem. The young prince and his profligate favorites revelled in all the license of sovereign power; but his hands were yet unstained with blood; and he had even displayed a generosity of sentiment, which might perhaps have ripened into solid virtue. A fatal incident decided his fluctuating character. One evening, as the emperor was returning to the palace through a dark and narrow portico in the amphitheatre, an assassin, who waited his passage, rushed upon him with a drawn sword, loudly exclaiming, 'The senate sends you this.' The menace prevented the deed; the assassin was seized by the guards, and immediately revealed the authors of the conspiracy. It had been formed, not in the State, but within the walls of the palace. … But the words of the assassin sunk deep into the mind of Commodus, and left an indelible impression of fear and hatred against the whole body of the senate. Those whom he had dreaded as importunate ministers he now suspected as secret enemies. The Delators, a race of men discouraged, and almost extinguished, under the former reigns, again became formidable as soon as they discovered that the emperor was desirous of finding disaffection and treason in the senate. … Suspicion was equivalent to proof; trial to condemnation. The execution of a considerable senator was attended with the death of all who might lament or revenge his fate; and when Commodus had once tasted human blood, he became incapable of pity or remorse. … Pestilence and famine contributed to fill up the measure of the calamities of Rome. … His cruelty proved at last fatal to himself. He had shed with impunity the noblest blood of Rome: he perished as soon as he was dreaded by his own domestics. Marcia, his favorite concubine, Eclectus, his chamberlain, and Lætus, his Prætorian præfect, alarmed by the fate of their companions and predecessors, resolved to prevent the destruction which every hour hung over their heads, either from the mad caprice of the tyrant, or the sudden indignation of the people. Marcia seized the occasion of presenting a draught of wine to her lover, after he had fatigued himself with hunting some wild beasts. Commodus retired to sleep; but whilst he was laboring with the effects of poison and drunkenness, a robust youth, by profession a wrestler, entered his chamber, and strangled him without resistance" (December 31, A. D. 192).

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapters 3-4.

ALSO IN: J. B. L. Crevier, History of the Roman Emperors, book 21 (volume 7).

ROME: A. D. 192-284. From Commodus to Diocletian. Twenty-three Emperors in the Century. Thirteen murdered by their own soldiers or servants. Successful wars of Severus, Aurelian, and Probus.

On the murder of Commodus, "Helvius Pertinax, the prefect of the city, a man of virtue, was placed on the throne by the conspirators, who would fain justify their deed in the eyes of the world, and their choice was confirmed by the senate. But the Prætorians had not forgotten their own power on a similar occasion; and they liked not the virtue and regularity of the new monarch. Pertinax was, therefore, speedily deprived of throne and life. Prætorian insolence now attained its height. Regardless of the dignity and honour of the empire, they set it up to auction. The highest bidder was a senator, named Didius Julianus [March, 193]. … The legions disdained to receive an emperor from the life-guards. Those of Britain proclaimed their general Clodius Albinus; those of Asia, Pescennius Niger: the Pannonian legions, Septimius Severus. This last was a man of bravery and conduct: by valour and stratagem he successively vanquished his rivals [defeating Albinus in an obstinate battle at Lyons, A. D: 197, and finishing the subjugation of his rivals in the east by reducing Byzantium after a siege of three years]. He maintained the superiority of the Roman arms against the Parthians and Caledonians.

See Britain; A. D. 208-211].

His reign was vigorous and advantageous to the state; but he wanted either the courage or the power to fully repress the license and insubordination of the soldiery. Severus left the empire [A. D. 211] to his two sons. Caracalla, the elder, a prince of violent and untamable passions, disdained to share empire with any. He murdered his brother and colleague, the more gentle Geta, and put to death all who ventured to disapprove of the deed. A restless ferocity distinguished the character of Caracalla; he was ever at war, now on the banks of the Rhine, now on those of the Euphrates. His martial impetuosity daunted his enemies; his reckless cruelty terrified his subjects. … During a Parthian war Caracalla gave offence to Macrinus, the commander of his body-guard, who murdered him [A. D. 217). Macrinus seized the empire, but had not power to hold it. He and his son Diadumenianus [after defeat in battle at Immæ, near Antioch] … were put to death by the army, who proclaimed a supposed son [and actually a second cousin] of their beloved Caracalla. This youth was named Elagabalus, and was priest of the Sun in the temple of Emesa, in Syria. Every vice stained the character of this licentious effeminate youth, whose name is become proverbial for sensual indulgence: he possessed no redeeming quality, had no friend, and was put to death by his own guards, who, vicious as they were themselves, detested vice in him. Alexander Severus, cousin to Elagabalus, but of a totally opposite character, succeeded that vicious prince [A. D. 222]. All estimable qualities were united in the noble and accomplished Alexander. … The love of learning and virtue did not in him smother military skill and valour; he checked the martial hordes of Germany, and led the Roman eagles to victory against the Sassanides, who had displaced the Arsacides in the dominion over Persia, and revived the claims of the house of Cyrus over Anterior Asia. Alexander, victorious in war, beloved by his subjects, deemed he might venture on introducing more regular discipline into the army. The attempt was fatal, and the amiable monarch lost his life in the mutiny that resulted [A. D. 235]. Maximin, a soldier, originally a Thracian shepherd, distinguished by his prodigious size, strength and appetite, a stranger to all civic virtues and all civic rules, rude, brutal, cruel, and ferocious, seated himself on the throne of the noble and virtuous prince, in whose murder he had been the chief agent. At Rome, the senate conferred the vacant dignity on Gordian, a noble, wealthy and virtuous senator, and on his son of the same name, a valiant and spirited youth. {2716} But scarcely were they recognized when the son fell in an engagement, and the father slew himself [A. D. 237]. Maximin was now rapidly marching towards Rome, full of rage and fury. Despair gave courage to the senate; they nominated Balbinus and Pupienus [Maximus Pupienus], one to direct the internal, the other the external affairs. Maximin had advanced as far as Aquileia [which he besieged without success], when his horrible cruelties caused an insurrection against him, and he and his son, an amiable youth, were murdered [A. D. 238]. The army was not, however, willing to acquiesce in the claim of the senate to appoint an emperor. Civil war was on the point of breaking out [and Balbinus and Pupienus were massacred by the Prætorians], when the conflicting parties agreed in the person of the third Gordian, a boy of but thirteen years of age [A. D. 238]. Gordian III. was … chiefly guided by his father-in-law, Misitheus, who induced him to engage in war against the Persians. In the war, Gordian displayed a courage worthy of any of his predecessors; but he shared what was now become the usual fate of a Roman emperor. He was murdered by Philip, the captain of his guard [A. D. 244]. Philip, an Arabian by birth, originally a captain of freebooters, seized on the purple of his murdered sovereign. Two rivals arose and contended with him for the prize, but accomplished nothing. A third competitor, Decius, the commander of the army of the Danube, defeated and slew him near Verona [A. D. 249]. During the reign of Philip, Rome attained her thousandth year."

T. Keightley, Outlines of History (Lardner's Cabinet Cyclopœdia), part 1, chapter 9.

"Decius is memorable as the first emperor who attempted to extirpate the Christian religion by a general persecution of its professors. His edicts are lost; but the records of the time exhibit a departure from the system which had been usually observed by enemies of the church since the days of Trajan. The authorities now sought out Christians; the legal order as to accusations was neglected; accusers ran no risk; and popular clamour was admitted instead of formal information. The long enjoyment of peace had told unfavourably on the church. … When, as Origen had foretold, a new season of trial came, the effects of the general relaxation were sadly displayed. On being summoned, in obedience to the emperor's edict, to appear and offer sacrifice, multitudes of Christians in every city rushed to the forum. … It seemed, says St. Cyprian, as if they had long been eager to find an opportunity for disowning their faith. The persecution was especially directed against the bishops and clergy. Among its victims were Fabian of Rome, Babylas of Antioch, and Alexander of Jerusalem; while in the lines of other eminent men (as Cyprian, Origen, Gregory Thaumaturgus, and Dionysius of Alexandria) the period is marked by exile or other sufferings. The chief object, however, was not to inflict death on the Christians, but to force them to recantation. With this view they were subjected to tortures, imprisonment and want of food; and under such trials the constancy of many gave way. Many withdrew into voluntary banishment; among these was Paul, a young man of Alexandria, who took up his abode in the desert of the Thebaid, and is celebrated as the first Christian hermit."

J. C. Robertson, History of the Christian Church, book 1, chapter 6 (volume 1).

"This persecution [of Decius] was interrupted by an invasion of the Goths, who, for the first time, crossed the Danube in considerable numbers, and devastated Mœsia.

See GOTHS: A. D. 244-251.

Decius marched against them, and gained some important advantages; but in his last battle, charging into the midst of the enemy to avenge the death of his son, he was overpowered and slain (A. D. 251). A great number of the Romans, thus deprived of their leader, fell victims to the barbarians; the survivors, grateful for the protection afforded them by the legions of Gallus, who commanded in the neighbourhood, proclaimed that general emperor. Gallus concluded a dishonourable peace with the Goths, and renewed the persecutions of the Christians. His dastardly conduct provoked general resentment; the provincial armies revolted, but the most dangerous insurrection was that headed by Æmilianus, who was proclaimed emperor in Mœsia. He led his forces into Italy, and the hostile armies met at Interamna (Terni); but just as an engagement was about to commence, Gallus was murdered by his own soldiers (A. D. 253), and Æmilianus proclaimed emperor. In three months Æmilianus himself met a similar fate, the army having chosen Valerian, the governor of Gaul, to the sovereignty. Valerian, though now sixty years of age, possessed powers that might have revived the sinking fortunes of the empire, which was now invaded on all sides. The Goths, who had formed a powerful monarchy on the lower Danube and the northern coasts of the Black Sea, extended their territories to the Borysthenes (Dneiper) and Tanais (Don): they ravaged Mœsia, Thrace and Macedon; while their fleets … devastated the coasts both of the European and Asiatic provinces.

See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

The great confederation of the Franks became formidable on the lower Rhine, and not less dangerous was that of the Allemanni on the upper part of that river.

See FRANKS: A. D. 253.

The Carpians and Sarmatians laid Mœsia waste; while the Persians plundered Syria, Cappadocia, and Cilicia. Gallienus, the emperor's son, whom Valerian had chosen for his colleague, and Aurelian, destined to succeed him in the empire, gained several victories over the Germanic tribes; while Valerian marched in person against the Scythians and Persians, who had invaded Asia. He gained a victory over the former in Anatolia, but, imprudently passing the Euphrates, he was surrounded by Sapor's army near Edessa … and was forced to surrender at discretion (A. D. 259).

See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

During nine years Valerian languished in hopeless captivity, the object of scorn and insult to his brutal conqueror, while no effort was made for his liberation by his unnatural son. Gallienus succeeded to the throne. … At the moment of his accession, the barbarians, encouraged by the captivity of Valerian, invaded the empire on all sides. Italy itself was invaded by the Germans, who advanced to Ravenna, but they were forced to retire by the emperor.

See ALEMANNI: A. D. 259.

{2717}

Gallienus, after this exertion, sunk into complete inactivity: his indolence roused a host of competitors for the empire in the different provinces, commonly called 'the thirty tyrants,' though the number of pretenders did not exceed 19. … Far the most remarkable of them was Odenatus, who assumed the purple at Palmyra, gained several great victories over the Persians, and besieged Sapor in Ctesiphon. … But this great man was murdered by some of his own family; he was succeeded by his wife, the celebrated Zenobia, who took the title of Queen of the East. Gallienus did not long survive him; he was murdered while besieging Aureolus, one of his rivals, in Mediolanum (Milan); but before his death he transmitted his rights to Claudius, a general of great reputation (A. D. 268). Most of the other tyrants had previously fallen in battle or by assassination. Marcus Aurelius Claudius, having conquered his only rival, Aureolus, marched against the Germans and Goths, whom he routed with great slaughter

See GOTHS: A. D. 268-270.

He then prepared to march against Zenobia, who had conquered Egypt; but a pestilence broke out in his army, and the emperor himself was one of its victims (A. D. 270). … His brother was elected emperor by acclamation; but in 17 days he so displeased the army, by attempting to revive the ancient discipline, that he was deposed and murdered. Aurelian, a native of Sirmium in Pannonia, was chosen emperor by the army; and the senate, well acquainted with his merits, joyfully confirmed the election. He made peace with the Goths, and led his army against the Germans, who had once more invaded Italy.

See ALEMANNI: A. D. 270.

Aurelian was at first defeated; but he soon retrieved his loss, and cut the whole of the barbarian army to pieces. His next victory was obtained over the Vandals, a new horde that had passed the Danube; and having thus secured the tranquility of Europe, he marched to rescue the eastern provinces from Zenobia," whom he vanquished and brought captive to Rome.

See PALMYRA.

This accomplished, the vigorous emperor proceeded to the suppression of a formidable revolt in Egypt, and then to the recovery of Gaul, Spain, and Britain, "which had now for thirteen years been the prey of different tyrants. A single campaign restored these provinces to the empire; and Aurelian, returning to Rome, was honoured with the most magnificent triumph that the city had ever beheld. … But he abandoned the province of Dacia to the barbarians, withdrawing all the Roman garrisons that had been stationed beyond the Danube. Aurelian's virtues were sullied by the sternness and severity that naturally belongs to a peasant and a soldier. His officers dreaded his inflexibility," and he was murdered, A. D. 275, by some of them who had been detected in peculations and who dreaded his wrath. The senate elected as his successor Marcus Claudius Tacitus, who died after a reign of seven months. Florian, a brother of Tacitus, was then chosen by the senate; but the Syrian army put forward a competitor in the person of its commander, Marcus Aurelius Probus, and Florian was presently slain by his own troops. "Probus, now undisputed master of the Empire, led his troops from Asia to Gaul, which was again devastated by the German tribes; he not only defeated the barbarians, but pursued them into their own country, where he gained greater advantages than any of his predecessors.

See GAUL: A. D. 277 and GERMANY: A. D. 277.

Thence he passed into Thrace, where he humbled the Goths; and, returning to Asia, he completely subdued the insurgent Isaurians, whose lands he divided among his veterans," and commanded peace on his own terms from the king of Persia. But even the power with which Probus wielded his army could not protect him from its licentiousness, and in a sudden mutiny (A. D. 282) he was slain. Carus, captain of the prætorian guards, was then raised to the throne by the army, the senate assenting. He repelled the Sarmatians and defeated the Persians, who had renewed hostilities; but he died, A. D. 283, while besieging Ctesiphon. His son Numerianus was chosen his successor; "but after a few months' reign, he was assassinated by Aper, his father-in-law and captain of his guards. The crime, however, was discovered, and the murderer put to death by the army. Dioclesian, said to have been originally a slave, was unanimously saluted Emperor by the army. He was proclaimed at Chalcedon, on the 17th of December, A. D. 284; an epoch that deserves to be remembered, as it marks the beginning of a new era, called 'the Era of Dioclesian,' or 'the Era of Martyrs,' which long prevailed in the church, and is still used by the Copts, the Abyssinians, and other African nations."

W. C. Taylor, Student's Manual of Ancient History, chapter 17, sections 6-7.

ALSO IN: E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapters 5-12 (volume 1).

ROME: A. D. 213. First collision with the Alemanni.

See ALEMANNI: A. D. 213.

ROME: A. D. 238. Siege of Aquileia by Maximin.

See ROME: A. D. 192-284.

ROME: A. D. 238-267. Naval incursions and ravages of the Goths in Greece and Asia Minor.

See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

ROME: A. D. 284-305. Reconstitution of the Empire by Diocletian. Its division and subdivision between two Augusti and two Cæsars. Abdication of Diocletian.

"The accession of Diocletian to power marks a new epoch in the history of the Roman empire. From this time the old names of the republic, the consuls, the tribunes, and the Senate itself, cease, even if still existing, to have any political significance. The government becomes avowedly a monarchical autocracy, and the officers by whom it is administered are simply the nominees of the despot on the throne. The empire of Rome is henceforth an Oriental sovereignty. Aurelian had already introduced the use of the Oriental diadem. The nobility of the empire derive their positions from the favor of the sovereign; the commons of the empire, who have long lost their political power, cease to enjoy even the name of citizens. The provinces are still administered under the imperial prefects by the magistrates and the assemblies of an earlier date, but the functions of both the one and the other are confined more strictly than ever to matters of police and finance. Hitherto, indeed, the Senate, however intrinsically weak, had found opportunities for putting forth its claims to authority. … The chosen of the legions had been for some time past the commander of an army, rather than the sovereign of the state. He had seldom quitted the camp, rarely or never presented himself in the capital. … The whole realm might split asunder at any moment into as many kingdoms as there were armies, unless the chiefs of the legions felt themselves controlled by the strength or genius of one more eminent than the rest. … {2718} The danger of disruption, thus far averted mainly by the awe which the name of Rome inspired, was becoming yearly more imminent, when Diocletian arose to re-establish the organic connection of the parts, and breathe a new life into the heart of the body politic. The jealous edict of Gallienus … had forbidden the senators to take service in the army, or to quit the limits of Italy. The degradation of that once illustrious order, which was thus rendered incapable of furnishing a candidate for the diadem, was completed by its indolent acquiescence in this disqualifying ordinance. The nobles of Rome relinquished all interest in affairs which they could no longer aspire to conduct. The emperors, on their part, ceased to regard them as a substantive power in the state; and in constructing his new imperial constitution Diocletian wholly overlooked their existence. … While he disregarded the possibility of opposition at Rome, he contrived a new check upon the rivalry of his distant lieutenants, by associating with himself three other chiefs, welded together by strict alliance into one imperial family, each of whom should take up his residence in a separate quarter of the empire, and combine with all the others in maintaining their common interest. His first step was to choose a single colleague in the person of a brave soldier of obscure origin, an Illyrian peasant, by name Maximianus, whom he invested with the title of Augustus in the year 286. The associated rulers assumed at the same time the fanciful epithets of Jovius and Herculius, auspicious names, which made them perhaps popular in the camps, where the commanding genius of the one and the laborious fortitude of the other were fully recognized. Maximianus was deputed to control the legions in Gaul, to make head against domestic sedition, as well as against the revolt of Carausius, a pretender to the purple in Britain, while Diocletian encountered the enemies or rivals who were now rising up in various quarters in the East.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 288-297.

His dangers still multiplied, and again the powers of the state were subdivided to meet them. In the year 292 Diocletian created two Cæsars; the one, Galerius, to act subordinately to himself in the East; the other, Constantius Chlorus, to divide the government of the western provinces with Maximian. The Cæsars were bound more closely to the Augusti by receiving their daughters in marriage; but though they acknowledged each a superior in his own half of the empire, and admitted a certain supremacy of Diocletian over all, yet each enjoyed kingly rule in his own territories, and each established a court and capital, as well as an army and a camp. Diocletian retained the wealthiest and most tranquil portion of the realm, and reigned in Nicomedia [see NICOMEDIA] over Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt; while he intrusted to the Cæsar Galerius, established at Sirmium, the more exposed provinces on the Danube. Maximian occupied Italy, the adjacent islands, and Africa, stationing himself, however, not in Rome, but at Milan. Constantius was required to defend the Rhenish frontier; and the martial provinces of Gaul, Spain, and Britain were given him to furnish the forces necessary for maintaining that important trust. The capital of the Western Cæsar was fixed at Treves. Inspired with a common interest, and controlled by the ascendency of Diocletian himself, all the emperors acted with vigor in their several provinces. Diocletian recovered Alexandria and quieted the revolt of Egypt.

See ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 296.

Maximian routed the unruly hordes of Maurentia, and overthrew a pretender to sovereignty in that distant quarter. Constantius discomfited an invading host of Alemanni, kept in check Carausius, who for a moment had seized upon Britain, and again wrested that province from Allectus, who had murdered and succeeded to him. Galerius brought the legions of Illyria to the defence of Syria against the Persians, and though once defeated on the plains of Carrhæ, at last reduced the enemy to submission.

See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627].

Thus victorious in every quarter, Diocletian celebrated the commencement of his twentieth year of power with a triumph at the ancient capital, and again taking leave of the imperial city, returned to his customary residence at Nicomedia. The illness with which he was attacked on his journey suggested or fixed his resolution to relieve himself from his cares, and on May 1, in the year 305, being then fifty-nine years of age, he performed the solemn act of abdication at Morgus, in Mæsia, the spot where he had first assumed the purple at the bidding of his soldiers. Strange to say, he did not renounce the object of his ambition alone. On the same day a similar scene was enacted by his colleague Maximian at Milan; but the abdication of Maximian was not, it is said, a spontaneous sacrifice, but imposed upon him by the influence or authority of his elder and greater colleague. Diocletian had established the principle of succession by which the supreme power was to descend. Having seen the completion of all his arrangements, and congratulated himself on the success, thus far, of his great political experiments, he crowned his career of moderation and self-restraint by strictly confining himself during the remainder of his life to the tranquil enjoyment of a private station. Retiring to the residence he had prepared for himself at Salona, he found occupation and amusement in the cultivation of his garden."

C. Merivale, General History of Rome, chapter 70.

ALSO IN: E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 13.

W. T. Arnold, The Roman System of Provincial Administration, chapter 4.

See, also, DIOCLETIAN.

ROME: A. D. 287. Insurrection of the Bagauds in Gaul.

See BAGAUDS; also, DEDITITIUS.

ROME: A. D. 303-305. The persecution of Christians under Diocletian.

"Dreams concerning the overthrow of the Empire had long been cast into the forms of prophecies amongst the Christians. … There were some to repeat the predictions and to count the proofs of overthrow impending upon the Empire. But there were more, far more, to desire its preservation. Many even laboured for it. The number of those holding offices of distinction at the courts and in the armies implies the activity of a still larger number in inferior stations. … Never, on the other hand, had the generality of Christians been the objects of deeper or more bitter suspicions. … By the lower orders, they would be hated as conspiring against the customs of their province or the glories of their race. By men of position and of education, they would be despised as opposing every interest of learning, of property, and of rank. Darker still were the sentiments of the sovereigns. {2719} By them the Christians were scorned as unruly subjects, building temples without authority, appointing priests without license, while they lived and died for principles the most adverse to the laws and to the rulers of the Empire. … Everywhere they were advancing. Everywhere they met with reviving foes. At the head of these stood the Cæsar, afterwards the Emperor Galerius. He who had been a herdsman of Dacia was of the stamp to become a wanton ruler. He showed his temper in his treatment of the Heathen. He showed it still more clearly in his hostility towards the Christians. … He turned to Diocletian. The elder Emperor was in the mood to hear his vindictive son-in-law. Already had Diocletian fulminated his edicts against the Christians. Once it was because his priests declared them to be denounced in an oracle from Apollo, as opposing the worship of that deity. At another time, it was because his soothsayers complained of the presence of his Christian attendants as interfering with the omens on which the Heathen depended. Diocletian was superstitious. But he yielded less to his superstition as a man than to his imperiousness as a sovereign, when he ordered that all employed in the imperial service should take part in the public sacrifices under pain of scourging and dismissal. … At this crisis he was accosted by Galerius. Imperious as he was, Diocletian was still circumspect. … Galerius urged instant suppression. 'The world,' replied his father-in-law, 'will be thrown into confusion, if we attack the Christians.' But Galerius insisted. Not all the caution of the elder Emperor was proof against the passions thus excited by his son-in-law. The wives of Diocletian and Galerius, both said to have been Christians, interceded in vain. Without consulting the other sovereigns, it was determined between Diocletian and Galerius to sound the alarum of persecution throughout their realms. Never had persecution begun more fearfully. Without a note of warning, the Christians of Nicomedia were startled, one morning, by the sack and demolition of their church. … Not until the next day, however, was there any formal declaration of hostilities. An edict then appeared commanding instant and terrible proceedings against the Christians. Their churches were to be razed. Their Scriptures were to be destroyed. They themselves were to be deprived of their estates and offices. … Some days or weeks, crowded with resistance as well as suffering, went by. Suddenly a fire broke out in the palace at Nicomedia. It was of course laid at the charge of the Christians. … Some movements occurring in the eastern provinces were also ascribed to Christian machinations. … The Empresses, suspected of sharing the faith of the sufferers, were compelled to offer public sacrifice. Fiercer assaults ensued. A second edict from the palace ordered the arrest of the Christian priests. A third commanded that the prisoners should be forced to sacrifice according to the Heathen ritual under pain of torture. When the dungeons were filled, and the racks within them were busy with their horrid work, a fourth edict, more searching and more pitiless than any, was published. By this the proper officers were directed to arrest every Christian whom they could discover, and bring him to one of the Heathen temples. … Letters were despatched to demand the co-operation of the Emperor Maximian and the Cæsar Constantius. The latter, it is said, refused; yet there were no limits that could be set to the persecution by any one of the sovereigns. … None suffered more than the Christians in Britain. … The intensity of the persecution was in no degree diminished by the extent over which it spread. … Some were thrown into dungeons to renounce their faith or to die amidst the agonies of which they had no fear. Long trains of those who survived imprisonment were sent across the country or beyond the sea to labour like brutes in the public mines. In many cities the streets must have been literally blocked up with the stakes and scaffolds where death was dealt alike to men and women and little children. It mattered nothing of what rank the victims were. The poorest slave and the first officer of the imperial treasury were massacred with equal savageness. … The memory of man embraces no such strife, if that can be called a strife in which there was but one side armed, but one side slain."

S. Eliot, History of the Early Christians, book 3, chapter 10 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: A. Carr, The Church and the Roman Empire, chapter 2.

G. Uhlhorn, The Conflict of Christianity with Heathenism, book 3, chapter 1.

ROME: A. D. 305-323. The wars of Constantine and his rivals. His triumph. His reunion of the Empire.

On the abdication of Diocletian and Maximian, Constantius and Galerius, who had previously held the subordinate rank of Cæsars, succeeded to the superior throne, as Augusti. A nephew of Galerius, named Maximin, and one Severus, who was his favorite, were then appointed Cæsars, to the exclusion of Constantine, son of Constantius, and Maxentius, son of Maximian, who might have naturally expected the elevation. Little more than a year afterwards, Constantius died, in Britain, and Constantine was proclaimed Augustus and Emperor, in his place, by the armies of the West. Galerius had not courage to oppose this military election, except so far as to withhold from Constantine the supreme rank of Augustus, which he conferred on his creature, Severus. Constantine acquiesced, for the moment, and contented himself with the name of Cæsar, while events and his own prudence were preparing for him a far greater elevation. In October, 306, there was a successful rising at Rome against Severus, Maxentius was raised to the throne by the voice of the feeble senate and the people, and his father, Maximian, the abdicated monarch, came out of his retirement to resume the purple, in association at first, but afterwards in rivalry with his son. Severus was besieged at Ravenna and, having surrendered, was condemned to death. Galerius undertook to avenge his death by invading Italy, but retreated ignominiously. Thereupon he invested his friend Licinius with the emblems and the rank of the deceased Severus. The Roman world had then six emperors—each claiming the great title of "Augustus": Galerius, Licinius, and Maximin in the East (including Africa), making common cause against Maximian, Maxentius and Constantine in the West. The first, in these combinations, to fall out, were the father and son, Maximian and Maxentius, both claiming authority in Italy. The old emperor appealed to his former army and it declared against him. {2720} He fled, taking shelter, first, with his enemy Galerius, but soon repairing to the court of Constantine, who had married his daughter Fausta. A little later, the dissatisfied and restless old man conspired to dethrone his son-in-law and was put to death. The next year (May, A. D. 311) Galerius died at Nicomedia, and his dominions were divided between Licinius and Maximin. The combinations were now changed, and Constantine and Licinius entered into an alliance against Maxentius and Maximin. Rome and Italy had wearied by this time of Maxentius, who was both vicious and tyrannical, and invited Constantine to deliver them. He responded by a bold invasion of Italy, with a small army of but 40,000 men; defeated the greater army of Maxentius at Turin; occupied the imperial city of Milan; took Verona, after a siege and a desperate battle fought outside its walls, and finished his antagonist in a third encounter (October 28, A. D. 312), at Saxa Rubra, within nine miles of Rome. Maxentius perished in the flight from this decisive field and Constantine possessed his dominions. In the next year, Maximin, rashly venturing to attack Licinius, was defeated near Heraclea, on the Propontis, and died soon afterwards. The six emperors of the year 308 were now (A. D. 313) reduced to two, and the friendship between them was ostentatious. But it endured little longer than a single year. Licinius was accused of conspiring against Constantine, and the latter declared war. The first battle was fought near Cibalis, in Pannonia, the second on the plain of Mardia, in Thrace, and Constantine was the victor in both. Licinius sued for peace and obtained it (December, A. D. 315) by the cession of all his dominion in Europe, except Thrace. For eight years, Constantine was contented with the great empire he then possessed. In 323 he determined to grasp the entire Roman world. Licinius opposed him with a vigor unexpected and the war was prepared for on a mighty scale. It was practically decided by the first great battle, at Hadrianople, on the 3d of July, 323. Licinius, defeated, took refuge in Byzantium, which Constantine besieged. Escaping from Byzantium into Asia, Licinius fought once more at Chrysopolis and then yielded to his fate. He died soon after. The Roman empire was again united and Constantine was its single lord.

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 14.

ALSO IN: E. L. Cutts, Constantine the Great, chapters 7-22.

ROME: A. D. 306. Constantine's defeat of the Franks.

See FRANKS: A. D. 306.

ROME: A. D. 313. Constantine's Edict of Milan. Declared toleration of Christianity.

After the extension of the sovereignty of Constantine over the Italian provinces as well as Gaul and the West, he went, in January, A. D. 313, to Milan, and there held a conference with Licinius, his eastern colleague in the empire. One of the results of that conference was the famous Edict of Milan, which recognized Christianity and admitted it to a footing of equal toleration with the paganisms of the empire—in terms as follows: "Wherefore, as I, Constantine Augustus, and I, Licinius Augustus, came under favourable auspices to Milan, and took under consideration all affairs that pertained to the public benefit and welfare, these things among the rest appeared to us to be most advantageous and profitable to all. We have resolved among the first things to ordain, those matters by which reverence and worship to the Deity might be exhibited. That is, how we may grant likewise to the Christians, and to all, the free choice to follow that mode of worship which they may wish. That whatsoever divinity and celestial power may exist may be propitious to us, and to all that live under our government. Therefore, we have decreed the following ordinance as our will, with a salutary and most correct intention, that no freedom at all shall be refused to Christians, to follow or to keep their observances or worship. But that to each one power be granted to devote his mind to that worship which he may think adapted to himself. That the Deity may in all things exhibit to us His accustomed favour and kindness. … And this we further decree, with respect to the Christians, that the places in which they were formerly accustomed to assemble, concerning which also we formerly wrote to your fidelity, in a different form, that if any persons have purchased these, either from our treasurer, or from any other one, these shall restore them to the Christians, without money and without demanding any price. … They who as we have said restore them without valuation and price may expect their indemnity from our munificence and liberality."

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book 10, chapter 5.

ALSO IN: P. Schaff, Progress of Religious Freedom, chapter 2.

ROME: A. D. 318-325. The Arian Controversy and the Council of Nicæa.

See ARIANISM; and NICÆA: A. D. 325.

ROME: A. D. 323. The conversion of Constantine. His Christianity. His character.

"The alleged supernatural conversion of Constantine has afforded a subject of doubt and debate from that age to the present. Up to the date of his war against Maxentius, the Emperor believed, like his father, in one god, whom he represented to himself, not with the attributes of Jupiter, best and greatest, father of gods and men, but under the form of Apollo, with the attributes of the glorified youth of manhood, the god of light and life. … His conversion to Christianity took place at the period of the war with Maxentius. The chief contemporary authorities on the subject are Lactantius and Eusebius. Lactantius, an African by birth, was a rhetorician (or, as we should call him, professor) at Nicomedia, of such eminence that Constantine entrusted to him the education of his eldest son, Crispus. Writing before the death of Licinius, i. e. before the year 314 A. D., or within two, or at most three, years of the event, Lactantius says, 'Constantine was admonished in his sleep to mark the celestial sign of God on the shields, and so to engage in the battle. He did as he was commanded and marked the name of Christ on the shields by the letter X drawn across them, with the top circumflexed. Armed with this sign his troops proceed,' etc. Eusebius, Bishop of Cæsarea, the historian of the early Church, the most learned Christian of his time, was, after Constantine's conquest of the East, much about the court, in the confidence of the Emperor, and one of his chief advisers in ecclesiastical matters. In his 'Life of Constantine', published twenty-six years after the Emperor's death, he gives us an interesting account of the moral process of the Emperor's conversion. {2721} Reflecting on the approaching contest with Maxentius, and hearing of the extraordinary rites by which he was endeavouring to win the favour of the gods, 'being convinced that he needed some more powerful aid than his military forces could afford him, on account of the wicked and magical enchantments which were so diligently practised by the tyrant, he began to seek for divine assistance. … And while he was thus praying with fervent entreaty, a most marvellous sign appeared to him from heaven, the account of which it might have been difficult to receive with credit, had it been related by any other person. But since the victorious emperor himself long afterwards declared it to the writer of this history, when he was honoured with his acquaintance and society, and confirmed his statement by an oath, who could hesitate to credit the relation, especially since the testimony of after time has established its truth? He said that at mid-day, when the sun was beginning to decline, he saw, with his own eyes, the trophy of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription, "Conquer by this." At this sight he himself was struck with amazement, and his whole army also, which happened to be following him on some expedition, and witnessed the miracle. He said, moreover, that he doubted within himself what the import of this apparition could be. And while he continued to ponder and reason on its meaning, night imperceptibly drew on; and in his sleep the Christ of God appeared to him with the same sign which he had seen in the heavens, and commanded him to procure a standard made in the likeness of that sign, and to use it as a safeguard in all engagements with his enemies.'" The standard which is said to have had this origin was the famous Labarum.

E. L. Cutts, Constantine the Great, chapter 11.

"He [Constantine] was not lacking in susceptibility to certain religious impressions; he acknowledged the peculiar providence of God in the manner in which he had been delivered from dangers, made victorious over all his pagan adversaries, and finally rendered master of the Roman world. It flattered his vanity to be considered the favourite of God, and his destined instrument to destroy the empire of the evil spirits (the heathen deities). The Christians belonging to court were certainly not wanting on their part to confirm him in this persuasion. … Constantine must indeed have been conscious that he was striving not so much for the cause of God as for the gratification of his own ambition and love of power; and that such acts of perfidy, mean revenge, or despotic jealousy, as occurred in his political course, did not well befit an instrument and servant of God, such as he claimed to be considered. … Even Eusebius, one of the best among the bishops at his court, is so dazzled by what the emperor had achieved for the outward extension and splendour of the church, as to be capable of tracing to the purest motives of a servant of God all the acts which a love of power that would not brook a rival had, at the expense of truth and humanity, put into the heart of the emperor in the war against Licinius. … Bishops in immediate attendance on the emperor so far forgot indeed to what master they belonged, that, at the celebration of the third decennium of his reign (the tricennalia), one of them congratulated him as constituted by God the ruler over all in the present world, and destined to reign with the Son of God in the world to come, The feelings of Constantine himself were shocked at such a parallel."

A. Neander, General History of the Christian Religion and Church, period 2, section. 1, A.

"As he approached the East, he [Constantine] adopted oriental manners; he affected the gorgeous purple of the monarchs of Persia; he decorated his head with false hair of different colours, and with a diadem covered with pearls and gems. He substituted flowing silken robes, embroidered with flowers, for the austere garb of Rome, or the unadorned purple of the first Roman emperors. He filled his palace with eunuchs, and lent an ear to their perfidious calumnies; he became the instrument of their base intrigues, their cupidity, and their jealousy. He multiplied spies, and subjected the palace and the empire, alike, to a suspicious police. He lavished the wealth of Rome on the sterile pomp of stately buildings. … He poured out the best and noblest blood in torrents, more especially of those nearly connected with himself. The most illustrious victim of his tyranny was Crispus, his son by his first wife, whom he had made the partner of his empire, and the commander of his armies. … In a palace which he had made a desert, the murderer of his father-in-law, his brothers-in-law, his sister, his wife, his son, and his nephew, must have felt the stings of remorse, if hypocritical priests and courtier bishops had not lulled his conscience to rest. We still possess the panegyric in which they represent him as a favourite of Heaven, a saint worthy of our highest veneration; we have also several laws by which Constantine atoned for all his crimes, in the eyes of the priests, by heaping boundless favours on the church. The gifts he bestowed on it, the immunities he granted to persons and to property connected with it, soon directed ambition entirely to ecclesiastical dignities. The men who had so lately been candidates for the honours of martyrdom, now found themselves depositaries of the greatest wealth and the highest power. How was it possible that their characters should not undergo a total change?"

J. C. L. de Sismondi, History of the Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 4 (volume 1).

See, also, CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 312-337.

ROME: A. D. 330. Transference of the capital of the Empire to Byzantium (Constantinople).

See CONSTANTINOPLE A. D. 330.

ROME: A. D. 337-361. Redivision of the Empire. Civil wars between the sons of Constantine and their successors. Elevation of Julian to the throne.

Before the death of Constantine, "his three sons, Constantine, Constantius, and Constans, had already been successively raised to the rank of Cæsar about the tenth, twentieth, and thirtieth years of his reign. The royal family contained also two other young princes, sons of Dalmatius, one of the half-brothers of Constantine; the elder of these nephews of the Emperor was called Dalmatius, after his father, the other Hanniballianus. … Constantine shared—not the Empire, but—the imperial power among his three sons. The eldest, Constantine, was to hold the first rank among the three Augusti, and to take the western Gallic provinces under his especial administration; Constantius was to take the east, viz., Asia, Syria, and Egypt; Constans was to take the central portion of the Empire, Italy, Africa, and Western Illyricum."

E. L. Cutts, Constantine the Great, chapter 33.

{2722}

The father of these three princes was no sooner dead (A. D. 337) than they made haste to rid themselves of all the possible rivals in a family which seemed too numerous for peace. Two uncles and seven cousins—including Dalmatius and Hannibalianus—with other connections by marriage and otherwise, were quickly put out of the way under one and another pretence and with more or less mockery of legal forms. The three brothers then divided the provinces between them on much the same plan as before; but Constantine, the eldest, now reigned in the new capital of his father, which bore his name. There was peace between them for three years. It was broken by Constantine, who demanded the surrender to him of a part of the dominions of Constans. War ensued and Constantine was killed in one of the earliest engagements of it. Constans took possession of his dominions, refusing any share of them to Constantius, and reigned ten years longer, when he was destroyed, A. D. 350, by a conspiracy in Gaul, which raised to his throne one Magnentius, a soldier of barbarian extraction. Magnentius was acknowledged in Gaul and Italy; but the troops in Illyricum invested their own general, Vetranio, with the purple. Constantius, in the East, now roused himself to oppose these rebellions, and did so with success. Vetranio, an aged man, was intimidated by artful measures and driven to surrender his unfamiliar crown. Magnentius advanced boldly to meet an enemy whom he despised, and was defeated in a great battle fought September 21, A. D. 351, at Mursa (Essek, in modern Hungary, on the Drave). Retreating to Italy, and from Italy to Gaul, he maintained the war for another year, but slew himself finally in despair and the empire had a single ruler, once more. The sole emperor, Constantius, now found his burden of power too great, and sought to share it. Two young nephews had been permitted to live, when the massacre of the house of Constantine occurred, and he turned to these. He raised the elder, Gallus, to the rank of Cæsar, and gave him the government of the præfecture of the East. But Gallus conducted himself like a Nero and was disgraced and executed in little more than three years. The younger nephew, Julian, escaped his brother's fate by great prudence of behavior and by the friendship of the Empress Eusebia. In 355, he, in turn, was made Cæsar and sent into Gaul. Distinguishing himself there in several campaigns against the Germans (see GAUL: A. D. 355-361), he provoked the jealousy of Constantius and of the eunuchs who ruled the imperial court. To strip him of troops, four Gallic legions were ordered to the East, for the Persian war. They rose in revolt, at Paris, proclaimed Julian emperor and forced him to assume the dangerous title. He promptly sent an embassy to Constantius asking the recognition and confirmation of this procedure; but his overtures were rejected with disdain. He then declared war, and conducted an extraordinary expedition into Illyricum, through the Black Forest and down the Danube, occupying Sirmium and seizing the Balkan passes before he was known to have left Gaul. But the civil war so vigorously opened was suddenly arrested at this stage by the death of Constantius (A. D. 361), and Julian became sole emperor without more dispute. He renounced Christianity and is known in history as Julian the Apostate.

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapters 18-22.

ROME: A. D. 338-359. Wars of Constantius with the Persians.

See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

ROME: A. D. 350-361. Extensive abandonment of Gaul to the Germans. Its recovery by Julian.

See GAUL: A. D. 355-361.

ROME: A. D. 361-363. Julian and the Pagan revival.

"Heathenism still possessed a latent power greater than those supposed who persuaded the Emperors that now it could be easily extirpated. The state of affairs in the West differed from that in the East. In the West it was principally the Roman aristocracy, who with few exceptions still adhered to their ancient religion, and with them the great mass of the people. In the East, on the contrary, Christianity had made much more progress among the masses, and a real aristocracy could scarcely be said to exist. In its stead there was an aristocracy of learning, whose hostility was far more dangerous to Christianity than the aversion of the Roman nobility. The youth still thronged to the ancient and illustrious schools of Miletus, Ephesus, Nicomedia, Antioch, and above all Athens, and the teachers in these schools were almost without exception heathen. … There the ancient heathen spirit was imbibed, and with it a contempt for barbarian Christianity. The doctrinal strife in the Christian Church was held up to ridicule, and, alas! with too much reason. For, according to the Emperor's favor and caprice, one doctrine stood for orthodoxy to-day and another to-morrow. To-day it was decreed that Christ was of the same essence with the Father, and all who refused to acknowledge this were deposed and exiled. Tomorrow the court theology had swung round, it was decreed that Christ was a created being, and now it was the turn of the other party to go into banishment. The educated heathen thought themselves elevated far above all this in their classic culture. With what secret anger they beheld the way in which the temples were laid waste, the works of art broken to pieces, the memorials of an age of greatness destroyed, and all in favor of a barbarian religion destitute of culture. The old rude forms of Heathenism, indeed, they themselves did not desire, but the refined Heathenism of the Neoplatonic school seemed to them not merely the equal but the superior of Christianity. … These were the sources of the re-action against Christianity. Their spirit was embodied in Julian. In him it ascended for the last time the imperial throne, and made the final attempt to stop the triumphal progress of Christianity. But it succeeded only in giving to the world irresistible evidence that the sceptre of the spirit of Antiquity was forever broken. … What influenced Julian was chiefly enthusiasm for Greek culture. Even in a religious aspect Polytheism seemed to him superior to Monotheism, because more philosophic. Neoplatonism filled the whole soul of the young enthusiast, and seemed to him to comprehend all the culture of the ancient world in a unified system. But of course his vanity had a great share in the matter, for he naturally received the most devoted homage among the Hellenists, and his rhetorical friends did not stint their flattery. … He made his entry … [into Constantinople) as a declared heathen. Although at the beginning of his campaign he had secretly sacrificed to Bellona, yet he had attended the church in Vienne. {2723} But on the march he put an end to all ambiguity, and publicly offered sacrifices to the ancient gods. The Roman Empire once more had a heathen Emperor. At first all was joy; for as universally as Constantius was hated, Julian was welcomed as a deliverer. Even the Christians joined in this rejoicing. They too had found the arbitrary government of the last few years hard enough to bear. And if some who looked deeper began to feel anxiety, they consoled themselves by the reflection that even a heathen Emperor could not injure the Church so much as a Christian Emperor who used his power in promoting whatever seemed to him at the time to be orthodoxy in the dogmatic controversies of the age. And Julian proclaimed, not the suppression of Christianity, but only complete religious liberty. He himself intended to be a heathen, but no Christian should be disturbed in his faith. Julian was certainly thoroughly in earnest in this. To be a persecutor of the Church, was the last thing he would have thought of. Besides, he was much too fully persuaded of the untruth of Christianity and the truth of Heathenism to persecute. Julian was an enthusiast, like all the rhetoricians and philosophers who surrounded him. He regarded himself as called by a divine voice to the great work of restoring Heathenism, and this was from the beginning avowedly his object. And he was no less firmly convinced that this restoration would work itself out without any use of force; as soon as free scope was given to Heathenism it would, by its own powers, overcome Christianity. … The Emperor himself was evidently in all respects a heathen from sincere conviction. In this regard at least he was honest and no hypocrite. The flagrant voluptuousness, which had corrupted the court, was banished, and a large number of useless officials dismissed. The life of the court was to be simple, austere, and pure. Men had never before seen an Emperor who conducted himself with such simplicity, whose table was so economically supplied, and who knew no other employments than hard work, and devoted worship of the gods. A temple was built in the palace, and there Julian offered a daily sacrifice. Often he might be seen serving at the sacrifice himself, carrying the wood and plunging the knife into the victim with his own hand. He remembered every festival which should be celebrated, and knew how to observe the whole half-forgotten ritual most punctiliously. He was equally zealous in performing the duties of his office as Pontifex Maximus. Everywhere he revived the ancient worship which had fallen into neglect. Here a closed temple was re-opened, there a ruined shrine restored, images of the gods were set up again, and festivals which had ceased to be celebrated, were restored. … Soon conversions became plentiful; governors, officials, soldiers, made themselves proficient in the ancient cultus; and even a bishop, Pegasius of New Ilium, whom Julian had previously learned to know as a secret friend of the gods, when he had heen the Emperor's guide to the classic sites of Troy, changed his religion, and from a Christian bishop became a heathen high-priest. … The dream of a restoration of Heathenism nevertheless soon began to prove itself a dream. Though now surrounded by heathen only, Julian could not help feeling that he was really isolated in their midst. He himself was naturally a mystic, and lived in his ideals. His Heathenism was one purified by poetic feeling. But there was little or nothing of this to be found actually existing. His heathen friends were courtiers, who agreed with him without inward conviction. … He was far too serious and severely moral for their tastes. They preferred the theatre to the temple, they liked amusement best, and found the daily attendance at worship and the monotonous ceremonies and sacrifices very dull. A measurably tolerant Christian Emperor would doubtless have suited them better than this enthusiastically pious heathen. Blinded as Julian was by his ideal views, he soon could not escape the knowledge that things were not going well. If Heathenism was to revive, it must receive new life within. The restoration must be also a reformation. Strangely enough Julian felt compelled to borrow from Christianity the ways and means for such a reformation. The heathen priests, like the Christian, were to instruct the people, and exhort them to holy living. The heathen, like the Christians, were to care for the poor. … While new strength was thus to be infused into Heathenism, other measures were adopted to weaken Christianity. An imperial edict, June 17, A. D. 362, forbade the Christians to act as teachers of the national literature, the ancient classics. It was, the Emperor explained, a contradiction for Christians to expound Homer, Thucydides, or Demosthenes, when they regarded them as godless men and aliens. He would not compel them to change their convictions, but also he could not permit the ancient writers to be expounded by those who took them to task for impiety. … This, of course, was not a persecution, if the use of force alone makes a persecution, yet it was a persecution, and in a sense a worse one than any which went before. Julian tried to deprive the Christians of that which should be common to all men,—education. … Nevertheless he had to confess to himself that the restoration of Heathenism was making no progress worth speaking of. … He spent his whole strength, he sacrificed himself, he lived only for the Empire over which Providence had made him lord, and yet found himself alone in his endeavor. Even his heathen friends, the philosophers and rhetoricians, kept at a distance. … With such thoughts as these, Julian journeyed to Antioch, in Syria, in order to make preparations there for the great campaign he purposed to make against the Persians. There new disappointments awaited him. He found the shrines of his gods forsaken and desolate. … The temple of Apollo was restored with the greatest splendor. Julian went there to offer a sacrifice to the god. He expected to find a multitude of worshippers, but no one even brought oil for a lamp or incense to burn in honor of the deity. Only an old man approached to sacrifice a goose. … Shortly afterwards, the newly restored temple burned down in the night. Now the Emperor's wrath knew no bounds. He ascribed the guilt to the Christians; and although the temple, as is probable, caught fire through the fault of a heathen philosopher, who carried a dedicatory lamp about in it without due precautions, many Christians were arrested and tortured. The Church had its martyrs once more; and Julian, discontented with himself and the whole world besides, advanced to new measures. {2724} The cathedral of Antioch was closed and its property confiscated. Julian decreed that the Christians, whose God had forbidden them to kill, should not be intrusted with any office with which judicial functions were connected. … Julian himself became more and more restless. He hurried from temple to temple, brought sacrifice after sacrifice; he knelt for hours before his gods and covered their statues with kisses. Then at night he sat in the silence at his writing-table, and gave vent to his bitterness and disgust with every thing. Then he wrote his works full of brilliant wit, thought out and expressed with Greek refinement, but full of bitterest hatred especially against the Galileans and their Carpenter's Son. … Finally, his immense preparations for the campaign against the Persians were finished. Julian started, after finally setting over the Antiochians a wretch as governor, with the remark that the man did not deserve to be a governor, but they deserved to be governed by such a one."

G. Uhlhorn, The Conflict of Christianity with Heathenism, book 3, chapter 3.

ALSO IN: _G. H. Rendall. Julian the Emperor._

_B. L. Gildersleeve, The Emperor Julian (Essays and Studies, pages 355-400)._

Gregory Nazianzen, Invectives against Julian, and Libanius, Funeral Oration upon Julian, translated by C. W. King.

ROME: A. D. 363. The Persian expedition of Julian. His death. Jovian made Emperor by the retreating army.

See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

ROME: A. D. 363-379. Christianity reascendant. Secret hostility of Paganism. Reign of Valentinian and Valens. Approach of the Huns. The struggle with the Goths. Elevation of Theodosius to the throne.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us