XIII. THE MACEDONIAN AND SYRIAC WARS AND THE THIRD PUNIC WAR (200-131 B.C.)…

XIII. THE MACEDONIAN AND SYRIAC WARS AND THE THIRD PUNIC WAR (200-131 B.C.)

From the time of Pyrrhus, Macedonia, and all Greece as well, had abundant causes to look with jealousy upon the growing power of Rome. For the most part Greece was in too shattered a condition--though doubtless most contemporary citizens did not realise the fact--to enter into active dispute with the new Mistress of the West. There were times, however, when Macedonia, not yet able to forget the brief period of her recent supremacy, strove to become a factor in the contest that was going on between Rome and Carthage.

And so it happened that Philip V of Macedon, an unworthy successor of his great namesake, made an alliance with Hannibal, and even promised to send troops to the active assistance of the Carthaginian general. The promise was never kept, thanks to the indecisive nature of Philip. But the intention brought upon Philip the wrath of Rome, and led, among other causes, to a series of contests between Macedonia and Rome, in which the latter always had the advantage; and in which, finally, all Greece was involved, partly on one side and partly on the other--with that suicidal lack of unity which was always the bane of the Greek character. The ultimate result was that all Greece, including Macedonia, became at last a Roman province. The destruction of Corinth followed close upon the destruction of Carthage, and for some generations after these events there was no maritime city left to dispute in any sense the position of Rome as mistress both by sea and land. The commonwealth of Rome thus stood at the apex of its power, little knowing that even in the day of its prime the period of decline was being ushered in.[a]

THE MACEDONIAN WAR; WAR WITH ANTIOCHUS III

[Sidenote: [200-192 B.C.]]

The victory of Zama gave the Romans the dominion of the west; the ambitious senate then aspired to that of the east, and the king of Macedonia was selected as the first object of attack. The people, wearied out with service and contributions, were with some difficulty induced to give their consent; and war was declared against Philip under the pretext of his having injured the allies of Rome, namely, the Athenians, and the kings of Egypt and Pergamus.

Philip after the late peace had been assiduous in augmenting his fleet and army; but instead of joining Hannibal when he was in Italy, he employed himself, in conjunction with Antiochus, king of Syria, in seizing the islands and the towns on the coast of the Ægean, which were under the protection of Egypt, whose king was now a minor. This engaged him in hostilities with the king of Pergamus and the Rhodians. A Roman army, under the consul P. Sulpicius, passed over to Greece (200); the Ætolians declared against Philip, and gradually the Bœotians and Achæans were induced to follow their example.

Philip, thus threatened, made a gallant resistance against this formidable confederacy; but the consul T. Quinctius Flamininus gave him at length (197) a complete defeat at Cynoscephalæ in Thessaly, and he was forced to sue for peace, which, however, he obtained on much easier terms than might have been expected, as the Romans were on the eve of a war with the king of Syria. The peace with Philip was followed by the celebrated proclamation at the Isthmian games of the independence of those states of Greece which had been under the Macedonian dominion; for the Romans well knew that this was the infallible way to establish their own supremacy, as the Greeks would be sure never to unite for the common good of their country.

After an interval of a few years, the long-expected war with Antiochus the Great of Syria broke out. The immediate occasion of it was the discontent of the Ætolians, who, being mortally offended with the Romans, sent to invite him into Greece. He had been for three years making preparations for the war, and he had now at his service the greatest general of the age, if he had known how to make use of him. For Hannibal having been appointed one of the suffets at Carthage, and finding the power of the judges enormous in consequence of their holding their office for life, had a law passed reducing it to one year. This naturally raised him a host of enemies, whose number was augmented by his financial reforms; for discovering that the public revenues had been diverted into the coffers of the magistrates and persons of influence, while the people were directly taxed to pay the tribute to the Romans, he instituted an inquiry, and proved that the ordinary revenues of the state were abundantly sufficient for all purposes. Those who felt their incomes thus reduced sought to rouse the enmity of the Romans against Hannibal, whom they charged with a secret correspondence with Antiochus; and though Scipio strongly urged the indignity of the Roman senate becoming the instrument of a faction in Carthage, hatred of Hannibal prevailed, and three senators were sent to Carthage, ostensibly to settle some disputes between the Carthaginians and Masinissa. Hannibal, who knew their real object, left the city secretly in the night, and getting on board a ship sailed to Tyre. He thence went to Antioch, and finding that Antiochus was at Ephesus he proceeded to that city, where he met with a most flattering reception from the monarch (195).

[Sidenote: [192-191 B.C.]]

Hannibal, true to his maxim that the Romans were only to be conquered in Italy, proposed to the king to let him have a good fleet and ten thousand men, with which he would sail over to Africa, when he hoped to be able to induce the Carthaginians to take arms again; and if he did not succeed he would land somewhere in Italy. He would have the king meanwhile to pass with a large army into Greece, and to remain there ready to invade Italy, if necessary. Antiochus at first assented to this plan of the war; but he afterwards lent an ear to the suggestions of Thoas the Ætolian, who was jealous of the great Carthaginian, and gave it up. He himself at length (192) passed over to Greece with a small army of ten thousand men; but instead of acting immediately with vigour, he loitered in Eubœa, where he espoused a beautiful maiden, wasted his time in petty negotiations in Thessaly and the adjoining country, by which he highly offended King Philip, whom it was his first duty to conciliate, and thus gave the consul M. Acilius Glabrio time to land his army and enter Thessaly. Antiochus hastened from Eubœa to defend the pass of Thermopylæ against him; but he was totally defeated, and forced to fly to Asia (191).

[Sidenote: [191-189 B.C.]]

Antiochus flattered himself at first that the Romans would not follow him into Asia; but Hannibal soon proved to him that such an expectation was a vain one, and that he must prepare for war. At Rome the invasion of Asia was at once resolved on. The two new consuls, C. Lælius and L. Scipio (190), were both equally anxious to have the conducting of this war; the senate were mostly in favour of Lælius, an officer of skill and experience, while L. Scipio was a man of very moderate abilities. But Scipio Africanus offering, if his brother was appointed, to go as his legate, Greece was assigned to him as his province without any further hesitation. The Scipios then, having raised what troops were requisite, among which five thousand of those who had served under Africanus came as volunteers, passed over to Epirus with a force of about thirteen thousand men. In Thessaly Acilius delivered up to them two legions which he had under his command, and being supplied with provisions and everything else they required they marched through Macedonia and Thrace for the Hellespont. A Roman fleet was in the Ægean, which, united with those of Eumenes of Pergamus and the Rhodians, proved an overmatch for that of Antiochus, even though commanded by Hannibal. When the Scipios reached the Hellespont they found everything prepared for the passage by Eumenes. They crossed without any opposition; and as this was the time for moving the Ancilia at Rome, P. Scipio, who was one of the salii, caused the army to make a halt of a few days on that account.

While they remained there an envoy came from Antiochus proposing peace, on condition of his giving up all claim to the Grecian cities in Asia and paying one-half of the expenses of the war. The Scipios insisted on his paying all the expenses of the war, as he had been the cause of it, and evacuating Asia on this side of Mount Taurus. The envoy then applied privately to P. Scipio, telling him that the king would release without ransom his son, who had lately fallen into his hands, and give him a large quantity of gold and every honour he could bestow, if through his means he could obtain more equitable terms. Scipio expressed his gratitude, as a private person, to the king for the offer to release his son; and, as a friend, advised him to accept any terms he could get, as his case was hopeless. The envoy retired; the Romans advanced to Ilium, where the consul ascended and offered sacrifice to Minerva, to the great joy of the Ilienses, who asserted themselves to be the progenitors of the Romans. They thence advanced to the head of the river Caicus. Antiochus, who was at Thyatira, hearing that P. Scipio was lying sick at Elæa, sent his son to him, and received in return his thanks, and his advice not to engage till he had rejoined the army. As in case of defeat his only hopes lay in P. Scipio, he took his counsel, and retiring to the foot of Mount Sipylus formed a strong camp near Magnesia.

The consul advanced, and encamped about four miles off; and as the king seemed not inclined to fight, and the Roman soldiers were full of contempt for the enemy, and clamorous for action, it was resolved, if he did not accept the proffer of battle, to storm his camp. But Antiochus, fearing that the spirit of his men would sink if he declined fighting, led them out when he saw the Romans in array.

The Roman army, consisting of four legions, each of fifty-four hundred men, was drawn up in the usual manner, its left resting on a river; three thousand Achæan and Pergamenian foot were placed on the right, and beyond them the horse, about three thousand in number; sixteen African elephants were stationed in the rear. The army of Antiochus consisted of sixty-two thousand foot, twelve thousand horse, and fifty-four elephants. His phalanx of sixteen thousand men was drawn up in ten divisions, each of fifty men in rank and thirty-two in file, with two elephants in each of the intervals. On the left and right of the phalanx were placed the cavalry, the light troops and the remainder of the elephants, the scythed chariots, and Arab archers, mounted on dromedaries.

When the armies were arrayed, there came on a fog, with a slight kind of rain, which relaxed the bowstrings, slings, and dart thongs of the numerous light troops of the king, and the darkness caused confusion in his long and various line. Eumenes, also, by a proper use of the light troops, frightened the horses of the scythed chariots, and drove them off the field. The Roman horse then charged that of the enemy and put it to flight; the confusion of the left wing extended to the phalangites, who, by their own men rushing from the left among them, were prevented from using their long sarissæ (or spears), and were easily broken and slaughtered by the Romans, who now also knew from experience how to deal with the elephants. Antiochus, who commanded in person on the right, drove the four turms or troops of horse opposed to him, and a part of the foot, back to their camp; but M. Æmilius, who commanded there, rallied them. Eumenes’ brother, Attalus, came from the right with some horse; the king turned and fled; the rout became general; the slaughter, as usual, was enormous; the camp was taken and pillaged. The loss of the Syrians is stated at fifty-three thousand slain and fourteen hundred taken; that of the Romans and their ally Eumenes at only three hundred and fifty men (190).

All the cities of the coast sent in their submission to the consul, who advanced to Sardis. Antiochus was at this time at Apamea; and when he learned that P. Scipio, who had not been in the battle, was arrived, he sent envoys to treat of peace on any terms. The Romans had already arranged the conditions of peace, and P. Scipio announced them as follows: Antiochus should abstain from Europe, and give up all Asia this side of Taurus; pay fifteen thousand Euboic talents for the expenses of the war, five hundred down, fifteen hundred when the senate and people ratified the peace, the remainder in twelve years, at one thousand talents a year; give Eumenes four hundred talents and a quantity of corn; give twenty hostages; and, above all, deliver up Hannibal, Thoas the Ætolian, and three other Greeks. The king’s envoys went direct to Rome, whither also went Eumenes in person, and embassies from Rhodes and other places; the consul put his troops into winter quarters at Magnesia, Tralles, and Ephesus.

At Rome the peace was confirmed with Antiochus. The greater part of the ceded territory was granted to Eumenes, Lycia and a part of Caria to the Rhodians (whose usually prudent aristocracy committed a great error in seeking this aggrandisement of their dominion), and such towns as had taken part with the Romans were freed from tribute. L. Scipio triumphed on his return to Rome, and assumed the surname of Asiaticus, to be in this respect on an equality with his illustrious brother.

[Sidenote: [189-183 B.C.]]

Cn. Manlius Vulso succeeded Scipio in Asia (189), and as the Roman consuls now began to regard it as discreditable and unprofitable to pass their year without a war, he looked round him for an enemy from whom he might derive fame and wealth. He fixed on the Gallo-Grecians, as the descendants of those Gauls were called who had passed over into Asia in the time of Pyrrhus, and won a territory for themselves, named from them in after-times Galatia. He stormed their fortified camp on Mount Olympus in Mysia, gave them a great defeat on the plains of Ancyra, and forced them to sue for peace. The booty gained, the produce of their plunder for many years, was immense. Manlius then led his army back to the coast for the winter. The next year (188) ten commissioners came out to ratify the peace with Antiochus; they added some more conditions, such as the surrender of his elephants; the peace was then sworn to, and the Romans evacuated Asia.

Hannibal, when he found that the Romans demanded him, retired to Crete; not thinking himself, however, safe in that island, he left it soon after and repaired to the court of Prusias, king of Bithynia, who felt flattered by the presence of so great a man. But the vengeance of Rome did not sleep, and no less a person than T. Flamininus was sent (183) to demand his death or his surrender. The mean-spirited Prusias, immediately after a conference with the Roman envoy, sent soldiers to seize his illustrious guest.[c] Cornelius Nepos thus describes the tragic result:

Hannibal constantly confined himself to one place, being a castle with which the king had presented him as a reward for his services, which he so contrived, that he had sallies on all sides through which he might escape if he should have occasion; for he always suspected that that would befall him, which at last did really happen. The Roman ambassadors, accompanied with a great number of men, having at length surrounded this castle on all parts, his servant perceiving them from the gate, runs to his master and acquaints him that there appeared a more than usual company of armed men; upon which he commanded him to go round all the doors of the house and speedily bring him word whether there was any way to escape. When the boy had immediately acquainted him how the case stood, and had farther assured him that all the passages were stopped, he was soon satisfied that this could not happen by accident, but that they came to seize his person; and that consequently he could not long enjoy his life, which he was resolved should not be in another man’s disposal: upon which he immediately swallowed a dose of poison, which he was always accustomed to carry with him. Thus, this our most valiant hero, harassed with numerous and various labours, reposed himself in death.[h]

It is said that Scipio Africanus died in the same year with his illustrious rival, an instance also of the mutability of fortune, for the conqueror of Carthage breathed his last in exile. In the year 193 he had had a specimen of the instability of popular favour; for while at the consular elections he and all the Cornelian gens exerted their influence in favour of his cousin P. Cornelius Scipio, the son of Cneius who had been killed in Spain,--and who was himself of so exemplary a character that, when the statue of the Idæan mother Cybele was, by the direction of the Sibylline books, brought to Rome from Pergamus, it was committed to his charge, as being the best man in the city--they were forced to yield to that of the vainglorious T. Quinctius Flamininus, who sued for his brother, the profligate L. Quinctius. But, as the historian observes, the glory of Flamininus was fresher; he had triumphed that very year; whereas Africanus had been now ten years in the public view, and since his victory over Hannibal he had been consul a second time, and censor--very sufficient reasons for the decline of his favour with the unstable people.

[Sidenote: [187-183 B.C.]]

The year after the conclusion of the peace with Antiochus (187) the Q. Petillii, tribunes of the people, at the instigation it is said of M. Porcius Cato, cited Scipio Africanus before the tribes, to answer various charges on old and new grounds, of which the chief was that of having taken bribes from Antiochus, and not having accounted for the spoil. Scipio was attended to the Forum by an immense concourse of people; he disdained to notice the charges against him; in a long speech he enumerated the various actions he had performed, and taking a book from his bosom, “In this,” said he, “is an account of all you want to know.” “Read it,” said the tribunes, “and let it then be deposited in the treasury.” “No,” said Scipio, “I will not offer myself such an insult”; and he tore up the book before their faces.

The night came on; the cause was deferred till the next day: at dawn the tribunes took their seat on the rostra; the accused, on being cited, came before it, attended by a crowd of his friends and clients. “This day, ye tribunes and quirites,” said he, “I defeated Hannibal in Africa. As, therefore, it should be free from strife and litigation, I will go to the Capitol and give thanks to Jupiter and the other gods who inspired me on this and other days to do good service to the state. Let whoso will, come with me and pray to the gods that ye may always have leaders like unto me.” He ascended the Capitol; all followed him, and the tribunes were left sitting alone. He then went round to all the other temples, still followed by the people; and this last day of his glory nearly equalled that of his triumph for conquered Africa. His cause was put off for some days longer; but in the interval, disgusted with the prospect of contests with the tribunes which his proud spirit could ill brook, he retired to Liternum in Campania. On his not appearing, the tribunes spoke of sending and dragging him before the tribunal; but their colleagues interposed, especially Ti. Sempronius Gracchus, from whom it was least expected, as he was at enmity with the Scipios. The senate thanked Gracchus for his noble conduct,[57] the matter dropped, and Scipio spent the remainder of his days at Liternum. He was buried there, it is said, at his own desire, that his ungrateful country might not even possess his ashes.

The actions of the two great men who were now removed from the scene sufficiently declare their characters. As a general Hannibal is almost without an equal; not a single military error can be charged to him, and the address with which he managed to keep an army composed of such discordant elements as his in obedience, even when obliged to act on the defensive, is astonishing. The charges of perfidy, cruelty, and such like, made against him by the Roman writers, are quite unfounded, and are belied by facts. Nowhere does Hannibal’s character appear so great as when, after the defeat of Zama, he, with unbroken spirit, applied the powers of his mighty mind to the reform of political abuses and the restoration of the finances, in the hopes of once more raising his country to independence. Here he shone the true patriot.

The character of his rival has come down to us under the garb of panegyric; but even after making all due deductions, much remains to be admired. His military talents were doubtless considerable; of his civil virtues we hear but little, and we cannot therefore judge of him accurately as a statesman. Though a high aristocrat, we have, however, seen that he would not hesitate to lower the authority of the senate by appealing to the people in the gratification of his ambition; and we certainly cannot approve of the conduct of the public man who disdained to produce his accounts when demanded. Of his vaunted magnanimity and generosity we have already had occasion to speak, and not in very exalted terms. Still Rome has but one name in her annals to place in comparison with that of Africanus; that name, Julius Cæsar, is a greater than his--perhaps than any other.

[Sidenote: [201-171 B.C.]]

To return to our narrative. In the period which had elapsed since the peace with Carthage, there had been annual occupation for the Roman arms in Cisalpine Gaul, Liguria, and Spain. The Gauls, whose inaction all the time Hannibal was in Italy seems hard to account for, resumed arms in the year 201, at the instigation of one Hasdrubal, who had remained behind from the army of Mago; they took the colony of Placentia, and met several consular and prætorian armies in the field, and, after sustaining many great defeats, were completely reduced; the Ligurians, owing to their mountains, made a longer resistance, but they also were brought under the yoke of Rome. In Spain the various portions of its warlike population, ill brooking the dominion of strangers, rose continually in arms, but failed before the discipline of the Roman legions and the skill of their commanders. The celebrated M. Porcius Cato when consul (195) acquired great fame by his conduct in that country.

Philip of Macedonia, who with all his vices was an able prince, had long been making preparations for a renewed war with Rome, which he saw to be inevitable. He died however (179) before matters came to an extremity. His son and successor Perseus was a man of a very different character; for while he was free from his father’s love of wine and women, he did not possess his redeeming qualities, and was deeply infected by a mean spirit of avarice. It was reserved for him to make the final trial of strength with the Romans. Eumenes of Pergamus went himself to Rome, to represent how formidable he was become, and the necessity of crushing him; the envoys of Perseus tried in vain to justify him in the eyes of the jealous senate; war was declared (172) against him on the usual pretext of his injuring the allies of Rome, and the conduct of it was committed to P. Licinius Crassus, one of the consuls for the ensuing year.

[Sidenote: [171-168 B.C.]]

The Macedonian army amounted to thirty-nine thousand foot, one-half of whom were phalangites, and four thousand horse, the largest that Macedonia had sent to the field since the time of Alexander the Great. Perseus advanced into Thessaly at the head of this army (171), and at the same time the Roman legions entered it from Epirus. An engagement of cavalry took place not far from the river Peneus, in which the advantage was decidedly on the side of the king. In another encounter success was on that of the Romans; after which Perseus led his troops home for the winter and Licinius quartered his in Thessaly and Bœotia.

Nothing deserving of note occurred in the following year. In the spring of 169 the consul Q. Marcius Philippus led his army over the Cambunian mountains into Macedonia, and Perseus, instead of occupying the passes in the rear and cutting off his supplies from Thessaly, cravenly retired before him, and allowed him to ravage all the south of Macedonia. Marcius returned to Thessaly for the winter, and in the ensuing spring (168) the new consul, L. Æmilius Paulus (son of the consul who fell at Cannæ), a man of high consideration, of great talent, and who had in a former consulate gained much fame in Spain, came out to take the command.

Meantime the wretched avarice of Perseus was putting an end to every chance he had of success. Eumenes had offered, for the sum of fifteen hundred talents, to abstain from taking part in the war, and to endeavour to negotiate a peace for him: Perseus gladly embraced the offer, and was ready enough to arrange about the hostages which Eumenes agreed to give; but he hesitated to part with the money before he had had the value for it, and he proposed that it should be deposited in the temple at Samothrace till the war was ended. As Samothrace belonged to Perseus, Eumenes saw that he was not to be trusted, and he broke off the negotiation. Again, a body of Gauls, with ten thousand horse and an equal number of foot, from beyond the Ister, to whom he had promised large pay, were now at hand; Perseus sought to circumvent them and save his money, and the offended barbarians ravaged Thrace and returned home. It is the opinion of the historian, that if he had kept his word with these Gauls, and sent them into Thessaly, the situation of the Roman army, placed thus between two armies, might have been very perilous. Lastly, he agreed to give Gentius, king of Illyricum, three hundred talents if he went to war with the Romans: he sent ten of them at once, and directed those who bore the remainder to go very slowly; meantime his ambassador kept urging Gentius, who, to please him, seized two Roman envoys who arrived just then, and imprisoned them. Perseus, thinking him fully committed with the Romans by this act, sent to recall the rest of his money.

Paulus led his army without delay into Macedonia, and in the neighbourhood of Pydna he forced the crafty Perseus to come to an engagement. The victory was speedy and decisive on the side of the Romans; the Macedonian horse fled, the king setting the example, and the phalanx thus left exposed was cut to pieces. Perseus fled with his treasures to Amphipolis, and thence to the sacred isle of Samothrace. All Macedonia submitted to the consul, who then advanced to Amphipolis after Perseus, who in vain sent letters suing for favour (168).

Meantime the prætor Cn. Octavius was come with his fleet to Samothrace. He sought ineffectually to induce Perseus to surrender, and then so wrought on the people of the island, that the unhappy prince, considering himself no longer safe, resolved to try to escape to Cotys, king of Thrace, his only remaining ally. A Cretan ship-master undertook to convey him away secretly; provisions, and as much money as could be carried thither unobserved, were put on board his bark in the evening, and at midnight the king left the temple secretly and proceeded to the appointed spot. But no bark was there; the Cretan, false as any of his countrymen, had set sail for Crete as soon as it was dark. Perseus having wandered about the shore till near daylight, slunk back and concealed himself in a corner of the temple. He was soon obliged to surrender to Octavius, by whom he was conveyed to the consul. Macedonia was, by the direction of the senate, divided into four republics, between which there was to be neither intermarriage nor purchase of immovable property (connubium or commercium); each was to defray the expenses of its own government, and pay to Rome one-half of the tribute it had paid to the kings; the silver and gold mines were not to be wrought, no ship-timber was to be felled, no troops to be kept except on the frontiers; all who had held any office, civil or military, under Perseus were ordered to quit Macedonia and go and live in Italy, lest if they remained at home they should raise disturbances. In Greece the lovers of their country were put to death or removed to Italy, under pretext of their having favoured the cause of Perseus, and the administration of affairs was placed in the hands of the tools of Rome.

Paulus on his return to Rome celebrated his triumph with great magnificence. His soldiers--because he had maintained rigid discipline and had given them less of the booty than they had expected--instigated by Ser. Sulpicius Galba, one of their tribunes, a personal enemy to the consul, had tried to prevent it; but the eloquence of M. Servilius and others prevailed. Perseus and his children, examples of the mutability of fortune, preceded the car of the victor. After the triumph, Perseus was confined at Alba in the Marsian land,[58] where he died a few years after.

Octavius was allowed to celebrate a naval triumph; and the prætor L. Anicius Gallus, who had in thirty days reduced Illyricum and made Gentius and all his family captives, also triumphed for that country.

AFFAIRS OF CARTHAGE[59]

[Sidenote: [201-149 B.C.]]

After the conclusion of the Hannibalian War, the Carthaginians seemed disposed to remain at peace; but the ambition of their neighbour Masinissa, whose life, to their misfortune, was extended to beyond ninety years, would not allow them to rest. He was continually encroaching on their territory and seizing their subject towns. The Roman senate, when appealed to as the common superior, sent out commissioners, who almost invariably decided in favour of Masinissa, and he gradually extended his dominion from the ocean inlands to the Syrtes.

On one of these occasions M. Porcius Cato was one of those sent out; and when he saw the fertility of the Carthaginian territory and its high state of culture, and the strength, wealth, and population of the city, he became apprehensive of its yet endangering the power of Rome; his vanity also, of which he had a large share, was wounded, because the Carthaginians, who were manifestly in the right, would not acquiesce at once in the decision of himself and his colleagues; and he returned to Rome full of bitterness against them. Henceforth he concluded all his speeches in the senate with these words, “I also think that Carthage should be destroyed.” On the other side, P. Scipio Nasica, either from a regard to justice, or, as it is said, persuaded that the only mode of saving Rome from the corruption to which she was tending was to keep up a formidable rival to her, strenuously opposed this course. The majority, however, inclined to the opinion of Cato; it was resolved to lay hold on the first plausible pretext for declaring war, and to those who were so disposed a pretext was not long wanting.

At Carthage there were three parties; the Roman, the Numidian, and the popular party. This last, which, with all its faults, alone was patriotic, drove out of the city about forty of the principal of the Numidian party, and made the people swear never to re-admit them nor listen to any proposals for their return. The exiles repaired to Masinissa, who sent his sons Micipsa and Gulussa to Carthage on their behalf. But Carthalo, a leader of the popular party, shut the gates against them, and Hamilcar, the other popular leader, fell on Gulussa as he was coming again, and killed some of those who attended him. This gave occasion to a war; a battle was fought between Masinissa and the Punic troops led by Hasdrubal, which lasted from morning to night without being completely decided. But Masinissa having enclosed the Punic army on a hill, starved them into a surrender; and Gulussa, as they were departing unarmed, fell on and slaughtered them all. The Carthaginians lost no time in sending to Rome to justify themselves, having previously passed sentence of death on Hasdrubal, Carthalo, and the other authors of the war. The senate, however, would accept of no excuse; and after various efforts on the part of the Carthaginians to avert it, war was proclaimed against them (149), and the conduct of it committed to the consuls L. Marcius Censorinus and M’. Manilius Nepos, with secret orders not to desist till Carthage was destroyed. Their army is said to have consisted of eighty thousand foot and four thousand horse, which had been previously prepared for this war.

OUTBREAK OF THE THIRD PUNIC WAR

[Sidenote: [149 B.C.]]

The Carthaginians were informed almost at the same moment of the declaration of war and of the sailing of the Roman army. They saw themselves without ships (for they had been prohibited to build any), without an ally (even Utica, not eight miles from their city, having joined the Romans), without mercenaries, or even supplies of corn, and the flower of their youth had been lately cut off by Masinissa. They again sent an embassy to Rome, to make a formal surrender of their city. The senate replied that if within thirty days they sent three hundred children of the noblest families as hostages to the consuls in Sicily, and did whatever the consuls commanded them, they should be allowed to be free and governed by their own laws, and to retain all the territory they possessed in Africa. At the same time secret orders were sent to the consuls to abide by their original instructions.

The Carthaginians became somewhat suspicious at no mention of their city having been made by the senate. They however resolved to obey, and leave no pretext for attacking them; the hostages accordingly were sent to Lilybæum, amidst the tears and lamentations of their parents and relatives. The consuls straightway transmitted them to Rome, and then told the Carthaginians that they would settle the remaining matters at Utica, to which place they lost no time in passing over, and when the Punic envoys came to learn their will, they said that as the Carthaginians had declared their wish and resolution to live at peace they could have no need for arms and weapons; they therefore required them to deliver up all that they had. This mandate also was obeyed; two hundred thousand sets of armour, with weapons of all kinds in proportion, were brought on wagons into the Roman camp, accompanied by the priests, the senators, and the chief persons of the city. Censorinus then, having praised their diligence and ready obedience, announced to them the further will of the senate, which was that they should quit Carthage, which the Romans intended to level, and build another town in any part of the territory they pleased, but not within less than ten miles of the sea. The moment they heard this ruthless command they abandoned themselves to every extravagance of grief and despair; they rolled themselves on the ground, they tore their garments and their hair, they beat their breasts and faces, they called on the gods, they abused the Romans for their treachery and deceit. When they recovered from their paroxysm they spoke again, requesting to be allowed to send an embassy to Rome. The consul said this would be to no purpose, for the will of the senate must be carried into effect. They then departed, with melancholy forebodings of the reception they might meet with at home, and some of them ran away on the road, fearing to face the enraged populace. Censorinus forthwith sent twenty ships to cast anchor before Carthage.

The people, who were anxiously waiting their return, when they saw their downcast melancholy looks, abandoned themselves to despair and lamented aloud. The envoys passed on in silence to the senate house, and there made known the inexorable resolve of Rome. When the senators heard it they groaned and wept; the people without joined in their lamentations; then giving way to rage, they rushed in and tore to pieces the principal advisers of the delivery of the hostages and arms; they stoned the ambassadors and dragged them about the city; and then fell on and abused in various ways such Italians as happened to be still there. The senate that very day resolved on war; they proclaimed liberty to the slaves, they chose Hasdrubal--whom they had condemned to death, and who was at a place called Nepheris at the head of a force of twenty thousand men--general for the exterior, and another Hasdrubal, the grandson of Masinissa, for the city; and having again applied in vain to the consuls for a truce that they might send envoys to Rome, they prepared vigorously for defence, resolved to endure the last rather than abandon their city. The temples and other sacred places were turned into workshops, men and women laboured day and night in the manufacture of arms, and the women cut off their long hair that it might be twisted into bowstrings. The consuls meantime, though urged by Masinissa, did not advance against the city, either through dislike of the unpleasant task, or because they thought that they could take it whenever they pleased. At length they led their troops to the attack of the town.

The city of Carthage lay on a peninsula at the bottom of a large bay; at its neck, which was nearly three miles in width, stood the citadel, Byrsa, on a rock whose summit was occupied by the temple of Esmun or Æsculapius; from the neck on the east ran a narrow belt or tongue of land between the lake of Tunis and the sea; at a little distance inlands extended a rocky ridge, through which narrow passes had been hewn. The harbour was on the east side of the peninsula; it was double, consisting of an outer and an inner one, and its mouth, which was seventy feet wide, was secured with iron chains; the outer harbour was surrounded by a quay for the landing of goods. The inner one, named the Cothon, was for the ships of war; its only entrance was through the outer one, and it was defended by a double wall; in its centre was an elevated island, on which stood the admiral’s house, whence there was a view out over the open sea. The Cothon was able to contain 220 ships, and was provided with all the requisite magazines. A single wall environed the whole city; that of Byrsa was triple, each wall being thirty ells high exclusive of the battlements, and at intervals of two hundred feet were towers four stories high. A double row of vaults ran round each wall, the lower one containing stalls for three hundred elephants and four thousand horses, with granaries for their fodder; the upper barracks, for twenty thousand foot and four thousand horse. Three streets led from Byrsa to the market, which was near the Cothon, which harbour gave name to this quarter of the town. That part of the town which lay to the west and north was named Megara; it was more thinly inhabited, and full of gardens divided by walls and hedges. The city was in compass twenty-three miles, and is said to have contained at this time seven hundred thousand inhabitants.

The consuls divided their forces; Censorinus attacked from his ships the wall where it was weakest, at the angle of the isthmus, while Manilius attempted to fill the ditch and carry the outer works of the great wall. They reckoned on no resistance; but their expectations were deceived, and they were forced to retire. Censorinus then constructed two large battering-rams, with which he threw down a part of the wall near the belt; the Carthaginians partly rebuilt it during the night, and next day they drove out with loss such of the Romans as had entered by the breach. They had also in the night made a sally and burned the engines of the besiegers. It being now the dog days, Censorinus finding the situation of his camp, close to a lake of standing water, unwholesome, removed to the sea-shore. The Carthaginians then, watching when the wind blew strong from the sea on the Roman station, used to fill small vessels with combustibles, to which they set fire, and spreading their sails let the wind drive them on the Roman ships, many of which were thus destroyed.

Censorinus having gone to Rome for the elections, the Carthaginians became more daring, and they ventured a nocturnal attack on the camp of Manilius, in which they would have succeeded but for the presence of mind of Scipio, one of the tribunes, who led out the horse at the rear of the camp and fell on them unexpectedly. A second nocturnal attack was frustrated by the same Scipio, who was now the life and soul of the army. Manilius then, contrary to the advice of Scipio, led his troops to Nepheris against Hasdrubal; but he was forced to retire with loss, and four entire cohorts would have been cut off had it not been for the valour and the skill of Scipio. Shortly after, when commissioners came out from Rome to inquire into the causes of the want of success, Manilius and his officers, laying aside all jealousy, bore testimony to the merits of Scipio; the affection of the army for him was also manifest; of all which the commissioners informed the senate and people on their return.

[Sidenote: [149-147 B.C.]]

Masinissa dying at this time, left the regulation of his kingdom to Scipio, who divided the regal office among the three legitimate sons of the deceased monarch; giving the capital and the chief dignity to Micipsa, the eldest, the management of the foreign relations to Gulussa, and the administration of justice to Mastanabal. Scipio also induced Himilco Phamæas, a Punic commander, who had hitherto done the Romans much mischief, to desert to them, bringing over with him twenty-two hundred horses.

In the spring (148) the new consul L. Calpurnius Piso came out to take the command of the army, and the prætor L. Hostilius Mancinus to take that of the fleet. They attacked the town of Clupea by sea and land, but were repulsed; and Calpurnius then spent the whole summer to no purpose in the siege of a strong town named Hippagreta. The Carthaginians, elevated by their unexpected good fortune, were now masters of the country; they insulted the Romans, and endeavoured to detach the Numidians. Hasdrubal, proud of his successes over Manilius, aspired to the command in the city; he accused the other Hasdrubal of having intelligence with his uncle Gulussa, who was in the Roman camp; and when this last, on being charged with it in the senate, hesitated from surprise, the senators fell on and killed him with the seats; and his rival thus gained his object.

The elections now came on at Rome; Scipio was there as a candidate for the ædileship; all eyes were turned on him, his friends doubtless were not idle, and the letters from the soldiers in Africa represented him as the only man able to take Carthage. The tribes therefore resolved to make him consul, though he was not of the proper age.[60] The presiding consul opposed in vain; he was elected, and the people further assumed the power of assigning him Africa for his province.

This celebrated man was son to Æmilius Paulus, the conqueror of Macedonia. He had been adopted by Scipio the son of Africanus; the Greek historian Polybius and the philosopher Panætius were his instructors and friends; and he had already distinguished himself as a soldier both in Spain and Africa.

[Sidenote: [147 B.C.]]

The very evening that Scipio arrived at Utica (147) he had again an opportunity of saving a part of the Roman army; for Mancinus, a vain rash man, having brought the fleet close to Carthage, and observing a part of the wall over the cliffs left unguarded, landed some of his men, who mounted to the wall. The Carthaginians opened a gate and came to attack them; the Romans drove them back and entered the town. Mancinus landed more men, and as it was now evening he sent off to Utica, requiring provisions and a reinforcement to be forwarded without delay, or else they would never be able to keep their position. Scipio, who arrived that evening, received about midnight the letters of Mancinus; he ordered the soldiers he had brought with him and the serviceable Uticans to get on board at once, and he set forth in the last watch, directing his men to stand erect on the decks and let themselves be seen; he also released a prisoner, and sent him to tell at Carthage that Scipio was coming. Mancinus meantime was hard pressed by the enemies, who attacked him at dawn; he placed five hundred men with armour around the remainder (three thousand men), who had none; but this availed them not; they were on the point of being forced down the cliffs when Scipio appeared. The Carthaginians, who expected him, fell back a little, and he lost no time in taking off Mancinus and his companions in peril.

Scipio, on taking the command, finding extreme laxity of discipline and disorder in the army, in consequence of the negligence of Piso, called an assembly, and having upbraided the soldiers with their conduct, declared his resolution of maintaining strict discipline; he then ordered all sutlers, camp-followers, and other useless and pernicious people to quit the camp, which he now moved to within a little distance of Carthage. The Carthaginians also formed a camp about half a mile from their walls, which Hasdrubal entered at the head of six thousand foot and one thousand horse,--all seasoned troops.

When Scipio thought the discipline of his men sufficiently revived, he resolved to attempt a night attack on the Megara; but being perceived by the defenders, the Romans could not scale the walls. Scipio then observing a turret (probably a garden one) which belonged to some private person, and was close to the wall, and of the same height with it, made some of his men ascend it. These drove down with their missiles those on the walls opposite them, and then laying planks and boards across got on the wall, and jumping down opened a gate to admit Scipio, who entered with four thousand men. The Punic soldiers fled to the Byrsa, thinking that the rest of the town was taken, and those in the camp hearing the tumult ran thither also; but Scipio, finding the Megara full of gardens with trees and hedges and ditches filled with water, and therefore unsafe for an invader, withdrew his men and went back to his camp. In the morning Hasdrubal, to satiate his rage, took what Roman prisoners he had, and placing them on the walls in sight of the Roman camp, mutilated them in a most horrible manner, and then flung them down from the lofty battlements. When the senators blamed him, he put some of them to death, and he made himself in effect the tyrant of the city.

Scipio having taken and burned the deserted camp of the enemy, formed a camp within a dart’s cast of their wall, running from sea to sea across the isthmus, and strongly fortified on all sides. By this means he cut them off from the land; and as the only way in which provisions could now be brought into the city was by sea, when vessels, taking advantage of winds that drove off the Roman ships, ran into the harbour, he resolved to stop up its mouth by a mole. He commenced from the belt, forming the mole of great breadth and with huge stones. The besieged at first mocked at the efforts of the Romans; but when they saw how rapidly the work advanced they became alarmed, and instantly set about digging another passage out of the port into the open sea; they at the same time built ships out of the old materials; and they wrought so constantly and so secretly, that the Romans at length saw all their plans frustrated, a new entrance opened to the harbour, and a fleet of fifty ships of war and a great number of smaller vessels issue from it. Had their evil destiny now allowed the Carthaginians to take advantage of the consternation of the Romans, and fall at once on their fleet, which was utterly unprepared, they might have destroyed it; but they contented themselves with a bravado and then returned to port. On the third day the two fleets engaged from morn till eve with various success. The small vessels of the enemy annoyed the Romans very much in the action; but in the retreat they got ahead of their own ships, and blocking up the mouth of the harbour, obliged them to range themselves along a quay which had been made without the walls for the landing of goods, whither the Roman ships followed them and did them much mischief. During the night they got into port, but in the morning Scipio resolved to try to effect a lodgment on the quay which was so close to the harbour. He assailed the works that were on it with rams, and threw down a part of them; but in the night the Carthaginians came, some swimming, some wading through the water, having combustibles with them, to which they set fire when near the machines, and thus burned them. They then repaired the works; but Scipio finally succeeded in fixing a corps of four thousand men on the quay.

During the winter Scipio took by storm the Punic camp before Nepheris, and that town surrendered after a siege of twenty-two days. As it was from Nepheris that Carthage received almost the whole of its supplies, they now failed, and famine was severely felt.[c]

APPIAN’S ACCOUNT OF THE DESTRUCTION OF CARTHAGE

[Sidenote: [146 B.C.]]

As soon as spring came on, Scipio assaulted the citadel called Byrsa and the gate called Cothon at the same time, which caused Hasdrubal to set on fire that part of the gate which was square; but whilst he expected Scipio should make a new attempt on that side, and stood firm with the inhabitants, Lælius mounted privately by the other side of the gate which was of a round figure, and making himself master of it, the shouts of those that were already got up so dismayed the enemies that the other soldiers now contemning the besieged, and having filled all the places difficult to pass with beams, engines, and planks, they leaped in on all sides in spite of all the resistance of the guards oppressed with hunger and lost to all courage; Scipio thus possessed of the wall that encompassed the gate called Cothon, got thence into the great place of the city which was nigh unto it, where night coming on, and not suffering him to go farther, he kept there in arms with those soldiers he had with him, and as soon as day broke, caused four thousand fresh men to come thither, who being got into Apollo’s temple, plundered his statue which was all of gold, and all the inside of the temple, which was covered with plates of gold of a thousand talents’ weight. They cut in pieces the plates with their swords, do what their captains could to hinder them, till such time as having got what they could they pursued their enterprise.

Meanwhile Scipio’s chief design was against the place called Byrsa, for that was the strongest of all the city, and a world of people were retreated thither. The way from the great place thither was up hill through three streets, on each side of which there was a continuance of very high houses, whose upper stories, jetting somewhat over into the street, whole showers of darts flew from thence upon the Romans, who were constrained before they passed farther to force the first houses and there post themselves, that from thence they might drive out those that fought in the neighbouring houses, and after they had driven them out, they laid beams and planks from one side of the street to the other, on which, as on bridges, they passed across the streets; thus they maintained war in the chambers whilst as fast as they met they fought more cruelly below in the streets.

All places were filled with cries and groans, people dying a thousand different sorts of deaths, some at sword’s point, some thrown headlong down from the tops of the houses upon the pavement, others falling upon javelins, pikes, and swords presented against them, however none durst yet set fire because of those who maintained the fight in the lofts; but when Scipio had gained the foot of the fortress all the three streets were immediately in a flame, and the soldiers had charge to hinder the ruins of the houses caused by the fire from falling into the street, that the whole army might have the more convenient passage; and now were new spectacles of calamity to be seen, the fire devouring and overturning the houses, and the Roman soldiers all about so far from hindering it, that they endeavoured to involve the rest in the same ruin. The miserable Carthaginians in despair falling confusedly with the stones and bricks on the pavement, dead bodies, nay, people yet living, and especially old men, women, and children, who had hidden themselves in the most secret places of the houses, some laden with wounds, others half burnt, and all crying out in a deplorable manner, others tumbling headlong from the upper stories of the houses among the mass of stones and wood were in their falls torn in pieces.

Nor was this the end of their miseries, for the pioneers, who to make way for the soldiers, removed the rubbish out of the middle of the streets, tossed with their hooks and forks the bodies, as well of the dead as living, into the vaults, turning them with their iron instruments as if they had been pieces of wood or stones, so that there might be seen holes full of heaps of men, of which some having been headlong thrown in, yet breathed a long time and lay with their legs above ground, and others interred up to the neck were exposed to the cruelty of the masons and pioneers, who took pleasure to see their heads and brains crushed under the horses’ feet, for these sort of people placed not those wretches so by chance but of set purpose.

As for the men of war, their being engaged in the fight, with the hopes of approaching victory, the eagerness of the soldiers heightened by the sounds of the trumpets, the noise made by the majors and captains in giving their orders, made them even like furies and hindered them from amusing themselves at these spectacles. In this bloody toil they continued six days and six nights without respite, save only that the soldiers were from time to time relieved by other fresh ones, lest the continual watchings, labour, slaughter and horror should make their hearts fail them. Scipio only bore out all this time without sleeping; he was continually in action, continually running from one place to another, and taking no food but what offered itself by chance as he was passing, till such time as quite tired out he sat down in an eminent place, that he might see what passed. Meanwhile strange havoc was made on all sides and this calamity seemed likely to continue much longer, when on the seventh day they had recourse to his clemency, and came to him bringing in their hand the Vervein of Æsculapius whose temple is the most considerable in all the fortress, desiring no other composition but that he would please to give their lives to all that would come forth, which he granted to them, except only to the runaways. There came forth fifty thousand as well men as women, who he caused to pass out of the little gate towards the fields with a good guard.

The runaways, who were about nine hundred, seeing there was no mercy for them, withdrew into the temple with Hasdrubal, his wife and children, where, though they were a small number, they might defend themselves, because of the height of the place situated upon rocks, and to which in time of peace they ascended by sixty steps, but at length oppressed with famine, watchings, and fear, and seeing their destruction so nigh, impatience seized them, and quitting the lower part of the temple they fled to the highest story. Hasdrubal meanwhile privately withdrew himself and went to Scipio with a branch of olive in his hand; Scipio having commanded him to come up and prostrate himself at his feet, showed him to the runaways, who seeing him demanded silence, which being granted, after having vomited forth an infinite number of revilings and reproaches against Hasdrubal, they set fire to the temple, and buried themselves in the flame. It is said that whilst the fire was kindling, Hasdrubal’s wife, decking herself in the best manner she could, and placing herself in the sight of Scipio, spoke to him with a loud voice in this manner.

The Oration of Hasdrubal’s Wife; Scipio’s Moralising

“I wish nothing to thee, O Roman, but all prosperity, for thou dost act only according to the rights of war. But I beseech the gods of Carthage, and thou thyself to punish, as he deserves, that Hasdrubal, who has betrayed his country, his gods, his wife, and children,” and then addressing her speech to Hasdrubal: “Perfidious wretch,” said she, “thou most wicked of all mankind! This fire is about to devour me and my children; but thou, great captain of Carthage, for what triumph are not thou reserved, or what punishment will not he make thee suffer, at whose feet I now see thee.”[61]

After these reproaches she cut her children’s throats and cast them into the fire, and then threw herself headlong in; such, as is reported, was the end of this woman, but this death had certainly better become her husband.

As for Scipio, seeing that city which had flourished for seven hundred years since it was first built, comparable to any empire whatsoever for extent of dominion by sea and land, for its arms, for its fleets, for its elephants, for its riches, and preferable even to all nations on the earth for generosity and resolution, since after their arms and ships were taken away, they had supported themselves against famine and war for three years together,--seeing it, I say, now absolutely ruined, it is said that he shed tears and publicly deplored the hard fortune of his enemies. He considered that cities, peoples, and empires are subject to revolutions, as well as the conditions of private men, that the same disgrace had happened to Troy, that powerful city, and afterwards to the Assyrians, Medes, and Persians, whose dominion extended so far, and lately to the Macedonians, whose empire was so great and flourishing, which was the reason that unawares, and as it were without thinking of it, that distich of Homer’s escaped him,--

“Priam’s and Troy’s time come, they Fates obey, And must to fire and sword be made a prey.”

And Polybius who had been his tutor, demanding of him in familiar discourse what he meant by those words, he ingeniously answered, that the consideration of the vicissitude of human affairs had put him in mind of his country, whose fate he likewise feared; as the same Polybius reports in his histories.

Plundering the City

Carthage thus taken, Scipio gave the plunder to the soldiers for some days, except only the gold and silver, and offerings, which were found in the temple. After which he distributed several military recompenses to all his soldiers, except only those who had pillaged Apollo’s temple. And having caused a very light ship to be laden with the spoil of the enemy, he sent it to Rome to carry the news of victory, and caused it to be signified throughout all Sicily that those who would come and claim the offerings made to their temples, which had been carried away by the Carthaginians when they had made war in that island, should have them restored. Thus giving testimonies of his goodness in all that he could, he gained the good will of all the people. And, at last, having sold what remained of the spoil, he caused all the bucklers, engines, and useless ships to be piled together, and being girt after the manner of the Romans, set fire to them as a sacrifice to Mars and Minerva.

The ship that went from Carthage happened to arrive at Rome in an evening, where as soon as the news was known of the taking of that city, all the people flocked to the public places, and the night was spent in rejoicings and embracing each other, as if this victory (the greatest that ever the Romans had gained) had confirmed the public repose, which they before thought insecure. They knew well, that they and their predecessors had done great things against the Macedonians, the Spaniards, and lately against the great Antiochus, as likewise in Italy; but they confessed they never had a war so much to be feared as this, by reason of the generosity, prudence, and hardiness of their enemies; nor so perilous, by reason of their infidelity. They likewise remembered the miseries they had suffered by the Carthaginians in Sicily, in Spain, and likewise in Italy, for sixteen whole years together, during which Hannibal had sacked four hundred cities, and destroyed in divers encounters three hundred thousand men, and being several times come to the very gates of their city, had reduced them to the last extremities. These things considered, made them with difficulty believe what was told of the victory, and they often demanded of one another if it were certain that Carthage was destroyed.

Thus they passed the night in recounting one to another how, after having disarmed the Carthaginians, they had presently made themselves new arms beyond judgment of all the world. How having taken away their ships, they had built others of old stuff; and how having stopped the entrance of their port, they had in a few days dug a new one on the other side. They spoke likewise of the unmeasurable height of their walls, the vast stones they were built with, the fire which they had several times put to the engines. In short they represented to the eyes of the auditors the whole figure of this war; insomuch that giving life to their discourse by their gesture they seemed to see Scipio on the ladders, on the ships, in the gates, and in the streets, running from one side to the other.

Sacrifices and the Triumph

The people having thus spent the night, on the morrow solemn sacrifices were made to the gods, and public prayers, wherein every tribe assisted separately; after which plays and spectacles were exhibited to public view, and then the senate sent ten commissioners, of the number of the Fathers, to settle jointly with Scipio such orders as were most necessary for that province and for the Romans’ best advantage. As soon as they were arrived they ordered Scipio to demolish what remained of Carthage; henceforth forbidding any to inhabit there, with horrible imprecations against those who in prejudice of this interdict should attempt to rebuild anything, especially the fort called Byrsa, and the place called Megara, to the rest they defended no man’s entrance. They decreed likewise that all the cities which in that war had held on the enemy’s party should be razed, and gave their territories, conquered by the Roman arms, to the Roman allies, particularly gratifying those of Utica with all the country extending from Carthage to Hippone; they made all the rest of the province tributary, from which neither men or women were exempt, resolving that every year there should be a prætor sent from the city, and having given these orders they returned to Rome. Scipio having executed them, and beholding himself at the height of his wishes, made sacrifices, and set forth plays in honour of the gods, and after settling all things in a good condition returned to Rome, whither he entered in triumph. Never was anything beheld more glorious, for there was nothing to be seen but statues and rarities, and curious pieces of an inestimable price which the Carthaginians had for so long a time been bringing into Africa from all parts of the world, where they had gained an infinite of victories.[g]

THE ACHÆAN WAR

[Sidenote: [151-147 B.C.]]

In the same year in which Lucullus and Galba took command in Spain, the senate was induced to perform an act of tardy justice in the release of the Achæan captives. The abduction of the best men in every state of Greece gave free scope, as has been said, to the oppressions of the tyrants favoured by Rome. In the Achæan assembly alone there was still spirit enough to check Callicrates, who never ventured to assail the persons and property of his fellow-citizens. Meantime years rolled on; the captives still languished in Etruscan prisons; hope deferred and sickness were fast thinning their numbers; the assembly asked only that Polybius and Stratius might return, but the request was met by a peremptory negative. At last, when Scipio returned from Spain, he induced Cato to intercede for these unhappy men. The manner of the old censor’s intercession is characteristic.

The debate had lasted long and the issue was somewhat doubtful, when Cato rose, and, without a word about justice or humanity, simply said: “Have we really nothing to do but to sit here all day, debating whether a parcel of old Greeks are to have their coffins made here or at home?” The question was decided by this unfeeling argument, and the prisoners, who in sixteen years had dwindled from one thousand to three hundred, were set free. But when Polybius prayed that his comrades might be restored to their former rank and honours, the old senator smiled, and told him “he was acting like Ulysses, when he ventured back into the cave of the Cyclops to recover his cap and belt.”

The men released in this ungracious way had passed the best part of their lives in captivity. The elder and more experienced among them were dead. The survivors returned with feelings embittered against Rome; they were rash and ignorant, and, what was worse, they had lost all sense of honour and all principle, and were ready to expose their country to any danger in order to gratify their own passions. The chief name that has reached us is that of Diæus. Polybius did not return at first, and when he reached Greece he found his countrymen acting with such reckless violence that he gladly accepted Scipio’s invitation to accompany him to the siege of Carthage. Callicrates, by a strange reverse, was now the leader of the moderate party. Diæus advocated every violent and unprincipled measure. On an embassy to Rome the former died, and Diæus returned as chief of the Achæan League.

Not long after (in 148 B.C.) a pretender to the throne of Macedon appeared. He was a young man named Andriscus, a native of Adramyttium, who gave himself out as Philip, a younger son of that luckless monarch. The state of Macedonia, divided into four republics, each in a state of compulsory excommunication, was so distracted, that, in the year 151, the people sent an embassy to Rome, praying that Scipio might be sent to settle their affairs, and he had only been prevented from undertaking the task by the self-imposed duty of accompanying the army of Lucullus into Spain. The pretender, however, met with so little success in his first attempt that he fled to the court of Demetrius at Antioch, and this prince sent him to Rome. The war with Carthage was then at its height. The senate treated the matter lightly, and the adventurer was allowed to escape. Some Thracian chiefs received him, and with troops furnished by them he penetrated into Thessaly. The Roman prætor, Juventius Thalna, was defeated and slain by the pretender.

The temporary success of Pseudo-Philippus (as the Romans called him) encouraged Diæus to drive the Achæans into a rupture with Rome. The haughty republic, he said, was at war with Carthage and with Macedon; now was the time to break their bonds. Q. Metellus, who had just landed in Greece with a considerable army, gave the Achæans a friendly warning, but in vain.

Metellus soon finished the Macedonian War. At his approach the pretender hastily retired from Thessaly, and was given up to the Roman prætor by a Thracian chief whose protection he had sought.

Meanwhile, a commission had already arrived at Corinth, headed by M. Aurelius Orestes, who summoned the chiefs of the League to hear the sentence of the senate upon their recent conduct. He informed them that they must relinquish all claims of sovereignty over Corinth, Argos, and Lacedæmon--a doom which reduced the Achæan League nearly to the condition from which Aratus first raised it. The chiefs reported what they had heard to the assembly. A furious burst of passion rose, which Diæus did not attempt to restrain. Orestes and the Romans hardly escaped personal violence.

[Sidenote: [147-146 B.C.]]

Orestes instantly returned to Rome; and the senate, preferring diplomacy to force, sent a second commission headed by Sext. Julius Cæsar, with instructions to use gentle language, and merely to demand the surrender of those who had instigated the violent scenes lately enacted at Corinth. A contemptuous answer was returned, upon which Cæsar returned to Rome, and the senate, roused at the Grecian insolence, declared war against the Achæans (147).

Metellus hoped to win the glory of pacifying Greece, as well as of conquering Macedonia. He sent some of his chief officers to endeavour to bring the Achæans to their senses. But their leaders were too far committed; and at the beginning of 146 B.C. Critolaus, a friend of Diæus, who was general for the year, advanced into Thessaly, and was joined by the Thebans, always the inveterate enemies of Rome. Metellus had already heard that the Achæan War was to be conducted by L. Mummius, one of the new consuls; and, anxious to bring it to a close before he was superseded, he advanced rapidly with his army. On this the braggart chiefs of the Achæans retreated in all haste, not endeavouring to make a stand even at Thermopylæ. Their army dispersed almost without a blow. Metellus pushed on straight towards the isthmus. Thebes he found deserted by her inhabitants; misery and desolation appeared everywhere.

Diæus prepared to defend Corinth. But popular terror had succeeded to popular passion; few citizens would enlist under his banner: though he emancipated a number of slaves, he could not muster more than fifteen thousand men.

When Metellus was almost within sight of Corinth, Mummius landed on the isthmus with his legions, and assumed the command. The Romans treated the enemy with so much contempt that one of their outposts was surprised; and Diæus, flushed with this small success, drew out his forces before the city. Mummius eagerly accepted the challenge, and the battle began. The Achæan cavalry fled at the first onset; the infantry was soon broken, and Diæus fled into one gate of Corinth and out of another without attempting further resistance. The Romans might have entered the city that same day; but seeing the strength of the Acropolis, and suspecting treachery, Mummius held back, and twenty-four hours elapsed before he took possession of his unresisting prey. But the city was treated as if it had been taken by assault; the men were put to the sword, the women and children reserved to be sold by auction. All treasures, all pictures, all the works of the famous artists who had moulded Corinthian brass into effigies of living force and symmetry, were seized by the consul on behalf of the state; then, at a given signal, fire was applied, and Corinth was reduced to a heap of ashes.

Mummius, a new man, was distinguished by the rudeness rather than by the simplicity of an Italian boor. He was not greedy, for he reserved little for himself; and when he died, his daughter found not enough left for her dowry; but his abstinence seems to have proceeded from indifference rather than self-denial. He cared not for the works of Grecian art. He suffered his soldiers to use one of the choicest works of the painter Aristides as a draught-board; but when Attalus offered him a large sum for the painting, he imagined it must be a talisman, and ordered it to be sent to Rome. Every one knows his speech to the seamen who contracted to carry the statues and pictures of Corinth to Rome. “If they lost or damaged them,” he said, “they must replace them with others of equal value.”

In the autumn ten commissioners arrived, as usual, with draughts of decrees for settling the future condition of Macedon and Greece. Polybius, who had returned from witnessing the conflagration of Carthage just in time to behold that of Corinth, had the melancholy satisfaction of being called to their counsels--a favour which he owed to the influence of Scipio. A wretched sycophant proposed to the commissioners to destroy the statues of Aratus and Philopœmen; but Polybius prevented this dishonour by showing that these eminent men had always endeavoured to keep peace with Rome. At the same time he declined to accept any part of the confiscated property of Diæus. Politically he was able to render important services. All Greece south of Macedonia and Epirus was formed into a Roman province under the name of Achaia.[62] The old republican governments of the various communities were abolished, and the constitution of each assimilated to that of the municipal cities of Italy. Polybius was left in Greece to settle these new constitutions, and to adjust them to the circumstances and wants of each place. His grateful countrymen raised a statue to his honour by the side of their old heroes, and placed an inscription on the pedestal, which declared that, if Greece had followed his advice, she would not have fallen.

Such was the issue of the last struggle for Grecian liberty. It was conducted by unworthy men, and was unworthy of the name it bore. Polybius had always opposed attempts at useless and destructive insurrection. He considered it happy for Greece that one battle and the ruin of one city consummated her fall. Indeed it was a proverb of the day that “Greece was saved by her speedy fall.”

The ten commissioners passed northwards into Macedonia, and formed that country, in conjunction with Epirus, into another province. Illyricum was so constituted soon after Cæsar’s conquest of Gaul.

Metellus and Mummius both returned to Rome before the close of 146 B.C., and were honoured with triumphs not long after Scipio had carried the spoils of Carthage in procession to the Capitol. In memory of their respective services, Metellus was afterwards known by the name of Macedonicus, while Mummius, who appears to have had no third name of his own, was not ashamed to assume the title of Achaicus.

SPANISH WARS: FALL OF NUMANTIA

[Sidenote: [150-141 B.C.]]

While Rome was engaged in war with Carthage, the Lusitanians resumed their inroads under the conduct of the gallant Viriathus, who had escaped from the massacre of Galba. No Roman general could gain any positive advantage over this indefatigable enemy, and in the year 143 B.C. the war assumed a much more serious aspect. The brave Celtiberian tribes of Numantia and its adjacent districts again appeared in the field. For several years we find two Roman commanders engaged in Spain, as before the treaty of Gracchus: one opposed to the Numantians and their Celtiberian allies in the north, the other carrying on an irregular warfare against Viriathus and the Lusitanians in the south.

The conduct of the Celtiberian War was committed to Q. Metellus Macedonicus, who had been elected consul for the year 143. He remained in command for two years, and was so successful in his measures that by the close of the second campaign he had compelled the enemy to shut themselves up in their strong cities. But he was disappointed, as in Greece, by finding anticipated triumph snatched from his grasp by Q. Pompeius, consul for the year 141 B.C.

Pompeius and his successors could make no impression upon the Numantians. Nay, C. Hostilius Mancinus, consul for the year 137, suffered a memorable reverse. Mancinus set out for his province amid general alarm, excited by the unfavourable omens at his inaugural sacrifices. He was attended as quæstor by young Ti. Gracchus, who had already distinguished himself at the siege of Carthage. Mancinus found the army before Numantia in a state of complete disorganisation, and deemed it prudent to retreat from his position in front of that city. The Numantians pursued and pressed him so hard that he was obliged to entrench himself in an old camp, and sent a herald with offers to treat on condition that his army should be spared. The enemy consented, but only on the understanding that young Gracchus was to make himself responsible for the execution of the treaty. Articles of peace were accordingly signed by Mancinus himself, with Gracchus and all the chief officers of the army.

[Sidenote: [141-140 B.C.]]

Before we notice the sequel of the famous Treaty of Mancinus, it will be well to follow the Lusitanian War to its conclusion.

Here also the fortune of Rome was on the decline. Q. Fabius Servilianus was surprised by Viriathus in a narrow defile, and so shut up that escape was impossible. The Lusitanian captain offered liberal terms, which were gladly accepted by the proconsul. This peace was approved by the senate, and Viriathus was acknowledged as the ally of Rome.

But Q. Servilius Cæpio, brother by blood of Servilianus, was little satisfied by the prospect of an inactive command. By importunity he wrung from the senate permission to break the peace so lately concluded by his brother, and ratified by themselves--a permission basely given and more basely used. Cæpio assailed Viriathus, when he little expected an attack, with so much vigour that the chief was fain to seek refuge in Gallæcia, and sent envoys to ask Cæpio on what ground the late treaty was no longer observed. Cæpio sent back the messengers with fair words, but privily bribed them to assassinate their master. They were too successful in their purpose, and returned to claim their blood-money from the consul. But he, with double treachery, disowned the act, and referred them to the senate for their reward.

The death of Viriathus was the real end of the Lusitanian War. He was (as even the Roman writers allow) brave, generous, active, vigilant, patient, faithful to his word; and the manner in which he baffled all fair and open assault of the disciplined armies of Rome gives a high conception of his qualities as a guerilla chief. His countrymen, sensible of their loss, honoured him with a splendid military funeral. The senate, with a wise moderation which might have been adopted years before, assigned lands to a portion of the mountaineers within the province, thus at length making good the broken promises of Galba. Such was the discreditable termination of the Lusitanian War. We must now return to Mancinus and his treaty.

[Sidenote: [140-138 B.C.]]

He returned to defend his conduct before the senate. He pleaded that the army was so demoralised that no man could wield it with effect, and admitted that he had concluded a treaty with Numantia without the authority of the senate and the people; as that treaty was not approved, he declared himself ready to support a bill for delivering up the persons of himself and all who had signed it to the Numantians. Such a bill was accordingly brought before the tribes. But young Gracchus upheld the treaty, and Scipio, his brother-in-law, made an eloquent speech in his behalf. But the people, always jealous of defeat, voted for delivering up Mancinus alone as an expiatory offering. Accordingly a person, consecrated for this special purpose, carried him to Numantia. But the Spaniards, like the Samnites of old, refused to accept such a compensation; one man’s body, they said was no equivalent for the advantage they had lost. Mancinus, therefore, returned to Rome. But when he took his place in the senate, the tribune Rutilius ordered him to leave the curia, because, he said, one who had been delivered over to the enemy with religious ceremony was no longer a citizen of Rome, and could not recover his rights by simply returning to his country. A special law was introduced to restore Mancinus to his former position.

Dec. Junius Brutus, consul for 138, an able officer, was entrusted with the pacification of Lusitania; the town of Valentia owes its origin to a colony of this people planted there by him. After finishing this business, he carried his arms northward across the Tagus, the Douro, and the Minho, and received homage from the tribes of the western Pyrenees. He was the first Roman who reached the shores of the Bay of Biscay, and saw the sun set in the waters of the Atlantic; and he was not unjustly honoured with the name of Callaicus for his successes.

But Numantia still defied the arms of Rome. Men began to clamour for a consul fit to command; and all eyes fell upon Scipio. His qualities as a general had been tested by success at Carthage, and circumstances had since occurred which raised him to great popularity.

After his triumph in 146 B.C., Scipio had continued to lead the simple life in which he had been bred, and which not all the wealth he inherited from his adoptive father induced him to abandon. He affected an austerity of manners which almost emulated that of Cato, though he was free from the censorious dogmatism and rude eccentricities of that celebrated man. In 142 B.C. he was elected censor in conjunction with Mummius, who so thwarted all the efforts of his colleague to promote reforms that the latter publicly exclaimed, “I should have been able to do my duty, either with a colleague or without one.” Scipio had gained a clear conception of the unsound state of things, which long-continued wars and senatorial government had produced. In the prayer, which he offered on entering upon the censor’s office, he altered the usual form; and instead of asking that “the gods would increase and magnify the power of Rome,” he said, “I pray that they may preserve it; it is great enough already.”

[Sidenote: [138-133 B.C.]]

His frugal life carried with it a guarantee of honesty and devotion to public interests, which would alone have secured him public favour. But several acts gained him more direct popularity. The son of his kinsman Nasica, nicknamed Serapio, had joined the high oligarchical party. But the son of Æmilius Paulus, on the few occasions on which he appeared in public, took the popular side. In 137 the tribune Cassius proposed the first law for taking votes by secret ballot,[63] with the intention of neutralising the undue influence of the senators. Scipio came forward and addressed the people in favour of this law. As his popularity was increased, his favour with the senate proportionately fell. Six years before, when he was canvassing for the censorship, App. Claudius, seeing the motley crowd which followed him, exclaimed: “Ah, Æmilius, it would trouble thy spirit to see thy son followed by such a crew.”

Yet he courted not popularity; he seldom even visited the Forum, though he spoke with force and eloquence when he chose. When the same Appius boasted that he knew all who frequented the Forum by name, Scipio replied: “True, I do not know many of my fellow-citizens by name, but I have taken care that all should know me.” Popularity came unasked, and the people cast their eyes upon him to retrieve the dishonour of the Roman arms in Spain. Legally he could not hold the consulship, for a law had been lately passed forbidding a second election in any case. But Scipio received the votes of every century, though he was not a candidate.

He was now fifty-one years of age, and he proceeded to execute his commission with the same steady vigour which distinguished him on other occasions. He found the demoralisation of the army not less than it had been described, and he applied himself to correct it with the same severity that his father had used in Macedonia, and he himself had used before Carthage. All courtesans and hucksters, together with fortune-tellers who drove a lucrative trade in the dispirited army, he commanded to quit the camp. All carriages, horses, and mules he ordered to be sold, except those that were needed for actual service. No cooking utensils were allowed except a spit, a camp bottle, and a drinking-cup. Down beds were forbidden; the general himself slept upon a straw pallet.

After some time spent in training his army, he led it to Numantia by a difficult and circuitous route, in order to avoid a battle. As he approached the place he was joined by young Jugurtha, bastard son of Micipsa, who came from Numidia with twelve elephants and a large body of light cavalry. By this time the season for war was nearly over, and he ordered two strong camps to be formed for winter quarters. In one he fixed himself, the other he put under the command of his brother Fabius.

With the beginning of spring (133 B.C.) he began to draw lines of circumvallation round the city, and declined all attempts made by the Numantians to provoke a general action--a circumstance which is rather surprising, if it be true that the available troops of the Spanish city amounted to no more than eight thousand men.

Numantia lay on both sides of the Douro, not far from its source. The blockade was so strict, and the inhabitants were so ill provided, that in no long time they were reduced to feed on boiled leather, and at length (horrible to tell) on the bodies of the dead. In vain those who retained sufficient strength attempted sallies by day and night; Scipio had established so complete a system, that additional troops were always ready to strengthen any weak point which might be assailed. In vain did the young men of Lubia endeavour to relieve their brave neighbours. Scipio promptly marched to that place with a division of light troops, and, having compelled the government to surrender four hundred of the most active sympathisers, he cut off their right hands and returned. Such was the cruelty which the most enlightened men of Rome permitted themselves to use towards barbarians. Nor does any ancient historian whisper a word of reproach.

The wretched Numantians now inquired on what terms they might be admitted to surrender. The reply was, that on that very day they must lay down their arms, and on the next appear at a given place. They prayed for time to deliberate. In the interval a certain number of brave men, resolved not to submit on any terms, put themselves to death; the remnant came forth from the gates. Their matted hair, squalid apparel, and wasted forms made even the Romans turn away in horror from their own work. Scipio selected fifty to walk in his triumphal procession, and sold the rest. The town was so effectually destroyed that its very site cannot be discovered.[b] The Roman historian Florus gives a slightly different but very vivid account.

FLORUS ON THE FALL OF NUMANTIA

[Sidenote: [133 B.C.]]

But when famine pressed hard upon them, (as they were surrounded with a trench and breastwork, and camps,) they entreated of Scipio to be allowed the privilege of engaging with him, desiring that he would kill them as men, and, when this was not granted, they resolved upon making a sally. A battle being the consequence, great numbers of them were slain, and, as the famine was still sore upon them, the survivors lived for some time on their bodies. At last they determined to flee; but this their wives prevented, by cutting with great treachery, yet out of affection, the girths of their saddles. Despairing, therefore, of escape, and being driven to the utmost rage and fury, they resolved to die in the following manner. They first destroyed their captains, and then themselves and their native city, with sword and poison and a general conflagration. Peace be to the ashes of the most brave of all cities; a city, in my opinion, most happy in its very sufferings; a city which protected its allies with honour, and withstood, with its own force, and for so long a period, a people supported by the strength of the whole world. Being overpowered at length by the greatest of generals, it left no cause for the enemy to rejoice over it. Its plunder, as that of a poor people, was valueless; their arms they had themselves burnt; and the triumph of its conquerors was only over its name.

Hitherto the Roman people had been noble, honourable, pious, upright, and illustrious. Their subsequent actions in this age, as they were equally grand, so were they more turbulent and dishonourable, their vices increasing with the very greatness of their empire. So that if any one divides this third age, which was occupied in conquest beyond the sea, and which we have made to consist of two hundred years, into two equal parts, he will allow, with reason and justice, that the first hundred years, in which they subdued Africa, Macedonia, Sicily, and Spain, were (as the poets sing) golden years; and that the other hundred, which to the Jugurthine, Cimbrian, Mithridatic, and Parthian wars, as well as those of Gaul and Germany, (in which the glory of the Romans ascended to heaven,) united the murders of the Gracchi and Drusus, the Servile War and (that nothing might be wanting in their infamy) the war with the gladiators, were iron, blood-stained, and whatever more severe can be said of them. Turning at last upon themselves, the Romans, as if in a spirit of madness, and fury, and impiety, tore themselves in pieces by the dissensions of Marius and Sulla, and afterwards by those of Pompey and Cæsar.[e] Such was the destructive, but not glorious work, which earned for Scipio the name of Numantinus, as the ruin of Carthage had given him a better title than adoption to that of Africanus.

Commissioners were sent, according to custom, to reorganise the Spanish provinces. The conquests of Scipio and of Dec. Brutus were comprehended in the limits of the hither province, and for some years Spain remained in tranquillity.

There was no enemy now left on the coast lands of the Mediterranean to dispute the sovereignty of Rome. Nine provinces, each fit to be a kingdom, owned her sway, and poured yearly taxes into her revenue. The kings of Asia Minor, of Syria, of Egypt, were her obedient vassals.

FIRST SLAVE WAR IN SICILY

[Sidenote: [134-133 B.C.]]

While Numantia was yet defying the Roman generals, a war broke out near home of a more dreadful kind than any distant contest with foreigners could be--the insurrection of the slaves in Sicily. Some remarks have already been made on the rapid increase in the number of slaves which attended the career of Roman conquest; and it was observed that, while domestic slaves usually were well treated, the agricultural slaves were thrust down to a condition worse than that of the oxen which laboured on the land. The evils which such oppression might engender were now proved by terrible experience.

Every one knows that in the early times of Rome the work of the farm was the only kind of manual labour deemed worthy of a free citizen. This feeling long survived, as may be seen from the praise bestowed on agriculture by Cicero, whose enthusiasm was caught from one of his favourite heroes, old Cato the censor, whose Treatise on Agriculture has been noticed. The taste for books on farming continued. Varro the antiquarian, a friend of Cicero, has left an excellent treatise on the subject. A little later came the famous Georgics of Virgil, followed at no long interval by Pliny’s notices, and then by the elaborate Dissertations of Columella, who refers to a great number of Roman writers on the same subject. It is manifest that the subject of agriculture possessed a strong and enduring charm for the Roman mind.

But, from the times of the Hannibalic War, agriculture lost ground in Italy. When Cato was asked what was the most profitable kind of farming, he said, “Good grazing.” What next? “Tolerable grazing.” What next? “Bad grazing.” What next? “Corn-growing.” Later writers, with one accord, deplore the diminished productiveness of land.

This result was due in part, no doubt, to war, but much more to other causes. Corn could be imported with facility from the southern lands of Sicily, from Egypt, and from Numidia, while a great part of Italy was little suited for the production of grain-crops. These causes found a powerful assistant in the growth of large estates, and the profitable employment of slaves as shepherds and herdsmen.

A few examples will show the prodigious number of slaves that must have been thrown into the market after the Second Punic War. To punish the Bruttians for the fidelity with which they adhered to the cause of Hannibal, the whole nation were made slaves; 150,000 Epirots were sold by Æmilius Paulus; fifty thousand captives were sent home from Carthage. These numbers are accidentally preserved; and if, according to this scale, we calculate the hosts of unhappy men sold into slavery during the Syrian, Macedonian, Illyrian, Grecian, and Spanish wars, we shall be prepared to hear that slaves fit only for unskilled labour were plentiful and cheap.

There was also a slave trade regularly carried on in the East. The barbarous tribes on the coasts of the Black Sea were always ready to sell their own flesh and blood; Thrace and Sarmatia were the Guinea Coast of the Romans. The entrepôt of this trade was Delos, which had been made a free port by Rome after the conquest of Macedonia. Strabo tells us that in one day ten thousand slaves were sold there in open market. Such were the vile uses to which was put the Sacred Island, once the treasury of Greece, when her states were banded together to secure their freedom against the Persian.

It is evident that hosts of slaves, lately free men, and many of them soldiers, must become dangerous to the owners. Nor was their treatment such as to conciliate. They were turned out upon the hills, made responsible for the safety of the cattle put under their charge, and compelled to provide themselves with the common necessaries of life. A body of these wretched men asked their master for clothing: “What,” he asked, “are there no travellers with clothes on?” The atrocious hint was soon taken; the shepherd slaves of lower Italy became banditti, and to travel through Apulia without an armed retinue was a perilous adventure. From assailing travellers, the marauders began to plunder the smaller country houses; and all but the rich were obliged to desert the country and flock into the towns. So early as the year 185 B.C., seven thousand slaves in Apulia were condemned for brigandage by a prætor sent specially to restore order in that land of pasturage. When they were not employed upon the hills, they were shut up in large prison-like buildings (ergastula), where they could talk together of their wrongs, and form schemes of vengeance.

The Sicilian landowners emulated their Italian brethren; and it was their tyrannical conduct that led to the frightful insurrection which reveals to us somewhat of the real state of society which existed under the rule of Rome.

In Sicily, as in lower Italy, the herds are driven up into the mountain pastures during the summer months, and about October return towards the plains. The same causes which were at work in Italy were at work, on a smaller scale, in Sicily. The city of Enna, once famous for the worship of Demeter, had become the centre of a pastoral district; and of the neighbouring landowners, Damophilus was the wealthiest. He was famous for the multitude of his slave herdsmen, and for his cruel treatment of them, and his wife Megallis emulated her lord in the barbarities which she practised on the female slaves. At length the cup was full, and four hundred of his bondsmen, meeting at Enna, took counsels of vengeance against Damophilus.

At Enna there lived another rich proprietor, named Antigenes; and among his slaves was a Syrian, known by the Greek name of Eunus. This man was a kind of wizard, who pretended to have revelations of the future, and practised a mode of breathing fire, which passed for a supernatural power. At length he gave out that his Syrian gods had declared to him that he should be king hereafter. His master treated him as a jester, and at banquets used to call him in to make sport for his guests; and they, entering into his humour, used to beg him to remember them when he gained his sceptre. But to the confederate slaves of Damophilus, Eunus seemed in truth a prophet and a king sent to deliver them. They prayed him to become their leader, he accepted their offer; and the whole body entered the city of Enna, with Eunus at their head breathing fire.

The wretched city now felt the vengeance of men brutalised by oppression. Clad in skins, armed with stakes burned at the end, with reaping hooks, spits, or whatever arms rage supplied, they broke into the houses, and massacred all persons of free condition, from the old man and matron to the infant at the breast. Crowds of slaves joined them; every man’s foes were those of his own household. Damophilus was dragged to the theatre and slain. Megallis was given over to the female slaves, who first tortured her, and then cast her down the crag on which the city stands.

Eunus thus saw the wildest of his dreams fulfilled. He assumed the diadem, took the royal name of Antiochus, and called his followers Syrians. The ergastula were broken open, and numbers of slaves sallied out to join him. Soon he was at the head of ten thousand men. He showed no little discretion in the choice of officers. Achæus, a Greek, was made general of the army, and he exerted himself to preserve order and moderate excesses.

A few days after the massacre at Enna, Cleon, a Cilician slave, raised a similar insurrection near Agrigentum. He also was soon at the head of several thousand men.

The Romans in Sicily, who had looked on in blank dismay, now formed hopes that the two leaders might quarrel--hopes soon disappointed by the tidings that Cleon had acknowledged the sovereign authority of King Antiochus. There was no Roman magistrate present in Sicily when the insurrection broke out. The prætor of the last year had returned to Italy; and his successor now arrived, ignorant of all that was passing. He contrived to collect eight thousand men in the island, and took the field against the slaves, who by this time numbered twenty thousand. He was utterly defeated, and the insurrection spread over the whole island.

The consternation at Rome was great. No one could tell where the evil would stop. Movements broke out in various parts of the empire; but the magistrates were on the alert, and all attempts were crushed forcibly. At Rome itself 150 slaves, detected in organising an outbreak, were put to death without mercy.

The insurrection seemed to the senate so serious that they despatched the consul, C. Fulvius Flaccus, colleague of Scipio in the year 134 B.C., to crush it. But Flaccus obtained no advantage over the insurgents. In the next year L. Calpurnius Piso succeeded in wresting Messana from the enemy, and advanced to Enna, a place strongly defended by nature, which he was unable to take. His successor, P. Rupilius, a friend of Scipio, began his campaign with the siege of Tauromenium. The slaves offered a desperate resistance. Reduced to straits for want of food, they devoured the children, the women, and at length began to prey upon each other. Even then the place was only taken by treachery. All the slaves taken alive were put to the torture and thrown down a precipice. The consul now advanced to Enna, the last stronghold of Eunus. The fate of the insurgents was inevitable. Cleon of Agrigentum chose a soldier’s death, and, sallying forth with all who breathed the same spirit as himself, he died fighting valiantly. Of the end of Achæus we are not informed. Eunus, with a bodyguard of six hundred men, fled to the neighbouring hills; but, despairing of escape, the greater part of the wretched men slew one another. The mock king himself was taken in a cave, with his cook, baker, bathing-man, and jester. He showed a pusillanimity far unlike the desperate courage of the rest, and died eaten by vermin in a dungeon at Morgantium.[c]

To show how horrible the thought of fighting slaves was to the Roman mind, it may be well to quote Florus upon this first war, the quelling of which he credits to Perperna.[a]

THE WAR AGAINST THE SLAVES

[Sidenote: [133 B.C.]]

Though, in the preceding war, we fought with our allies (which was bad enough), yet we contended with free men, and men of good birth; but who can with patience hear of a war against slaves on the part of a people at the head of all nations! The first war with slaves occurred in the infancy of Rome, in the heart of the city, when Herdonius Sabinus was their leader, and when, while the state was distracted with the seditions of the tribunes, the Capitol was besieged and wrested by the consul from the servile multitude. But this was an insurrection rather than a war. At a subsequent period, when the forces of the empire were engaged in different parts of the world, who would believe that Sicily was much more cruelly devastated by a war with slaves than in that with the Carthaginians? This country, fruitful in corn, and, in a manner, a suburban province, was covered with large estates of many Roman citizens; and the numerous slave houses and fettered tillers of the ground supplied force enough for a war. A certain Syrian, by name Eunus (the greatness of our defeats from him makes us remember it), counterfeiting a fanatical inspiration, and tossing his hair in honour of the Syrian goddess, excited the slaves by command of heaven as it were, to claim their liberty and take up arms. And that he might prove this to be done by supernatural direction, he concealed a nut in his mouth, which he had filled with brimstone and fire, and, breathing gently, sent forth flame together with his words. This prodigy at first attracted two thousand of such as came in his way; but in a short time, by breaking open the slave houses, he collected a force of above sixty thousand; and, being adorned with ensigns of royalty, that nothing might be wanting to his audacity, he laid waste, with lamentable desolation, fortresses, towns, and villages. The camps even of prætors (the utmost disgrace of war) were taken by him; nor will I shrink from giving their names; they were the camps of Manilius, Lentulus, Piso, and Hypsæus. Thus those, who ought to have been dragged home by slave-takers, pursued prætorian generals routed in battle. At last vengeance was taken on them by our general, Perperna; for having conquered them, and at last besieged them in Enna, and reduced them with famine as with a pestilence, he threw the remainder of the marauders into chains, and then crucified them. But over such enemies he was content with an ovation, that he might not sully the dignity of a triumph with the name of slaves.[e]

[Sidenote: [133-131 B.C.]]

Thus was crushed for a time this perilous insurrection, the result of the slave system established by Roman conquest. The well-being of Sicily had even now been so seriously impaired that extraordinary measures were deemed necessary for restoring order. The Sibylline books were consulted. The oracular page ordered the propitiation of “Ceres the most ancient”; and a solemn deputation of priests proceeded to the august temple of the goddess in the city of Enna. This circumstance, seemingly unimportant, becomes significant, when it is considered that the war really originated in the neglect of agricultural labours, and was at its height during the notable year in which Ti. Gracchus was bringing to all men’s knowledge the reduced condition of the farmers of Italy.

Ten commissioners were sent to assist Rupilius in drawing up laws for the better regulation of the agricultural districts. The code formerly established by Hiero at Syracuse was taken as the basis of their legislation, a measure which gave great satisfaction to all the Greek communities. The whole land was required to pay a tithe of its produce to the Romans except the five free cities and some others which were allowed to pay a fixed annual sum. The collection of these tithes was to be let to Roman contractors. But to prevent extortion, courts of appeal were provided. All disputes between citizens of the same town were left to be decided in the town courts; those between citizens of different towns, by judges drawn by lot under the eye of the prætor; those between a town community and an individual, by the senate of some other city; those between a Roman citizen and a Sicilian, by a judge belonging to the same nation as the defendant. There can be no doubt that the general condition of the Sicilian landholders was considerably improved by this system; and agriculture again flourished in Sicily as it had done in former times.[b]

FOOTNOTES

[57] For this, and for his similar conduct to L. Scipio, the family gave him in marriage Cornelia, the daughter of Africanus. The two celebrated Gracchi were their sons.

[58] This town, which must not be confounded with the ancient Alba Longa, lay on the Fucine Lake.

[59] [The great original authority for the Third Punic War was Polybius,[d] whose accounts of striking incidents in the Hannibalic Wars we have previously quoted. Polybius was the personal friend of Scipio the Younger and was present, as we shall see, at the destruction of Carthage. Unfortunately his first-hand description of that memorable event has not been preserved. But the accounts of Livy[i] and of Appian[g] were based largely, if not solely, upon Polybius. Appian’s account of the war as a whole is too long for insertion here; but Keightley’s[c] description is virtually an abridgment of Appian, paragraph by paragraph, at times the translation being almost literal. For the concluding scenes we shall turn to Appian himself.]

[60] The lawful age for the consulate at this time was forty-three years, and Scipio was only thirty-eight.

[61] [Ihne[f] says of this: “We have serious doubts about the truth of this dramatic effect, which would do honour to any stage manager. A woman standing on the roof of a burning temple, and, in the midst of uproar and carnage, haranguing her husband, who is at a safe distance, is a scene passing all bounds of historical probability. What makes it particularly suspicious is the pretty little piece of adulation which the frantic woman has the politeness to address to Scipio: σοὶ μὲν οὐ νέμεσις ἐκθεῶν ὦ Ῥωμαῖε, ἐπὶ γὰρ πολεμίαν ἐστρατεύσας. Appian,[g] VIII, 31. Καὶ τῷ στρατηγῷ μεγάλας ἐπανῆγε τὰς χάριτας. Polybius,[d] XXXIX, 3, 6. All this is as much a fiction as any scene in a sensational novel. We have no doubt that Hasdrubal and his wife were retained by the Roman deserters against their will. At last Hasdrubal succeeded in escaping from them (λαθὼν ἔφυγε, Appian, VIII, 131). It is possible that thereupon his wife and children were murdered before his eyes.”]

[62] [According to Marquardt,[j] Achaia was not organised into a separate province till the reign of Augustus.]

[63] These Leges Tabellariæ (as the Romans called them, tabella being their word for a ballot) were four in number: (1) The Gabinian (139 B.C.), introducing the use of the ballot at elections. (2) The Cassian (137), introducing it in all state-trials, except in the case of high-treason (perduellio). (3) The Papirian (131), introducing it into the Legislative Assembly. (4) The Cælian (107), which cancelled the single exception made by the Cassian Law.

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

XIV. CIVILISATION AT THE END OF THE PERIOD OF CONQUEST

ORGANISATION OF THE GOVERNMENT

Now that we have seen Rome first become mistress of Italy, and then, after a life and death struggle, rise superior to Carthage; now that we shall have to follow her in her conquest of all the countries bordering on the Mediterranean, so that this sea became what in modern phrase may be called a Roman lake, we naturally inquire, what was the form of government, what the treatment of the subject foreigners, what the condition of the people?

About the time of the Punic Wars the framework of the Roman constitution was complete. The only trace remaining of ancient severance was the regulation by which, of the two consuls and the two censors, one must be a patrician, one a plebeian. In a few years even this partition of offices fell into disuse, and no political distinction remained, save that persons of patrician pedigree were excluded from the tribunate of the plebs.[64]

In correspondence with the advance of plebeian and the decay of patrician families, a silent revolution had been wrought in most parts of the constitution. The assembly of the curies had become a mere form. They continued to meet even to Cicero’s time; but their business had dwindled away to the regulation of the religious observances proper to the patrician gentes. A few lictors, who were present as the attendants of the presiding magistrates, alone appeared to represent the descendants of the Valerii, the Claudii, and the Postumii.[65]

With regard to the executive government, the chief officers of state employed in the administration of Roman affairs remained as they had been settled after the Licinian laws. In Cicero’s time it is well known that every Roman who aspired to the highest offices was obliged to ascend through a regular scale of honours. An age was fixed before which each was unattainable. The first office so held was the quæstorship, and the earliest age at which this could then be gained appears to have been about twenty-seven. Several years were then to elapse before a Roman could hold the first curule office, that is, the ædileship. But between this and each of the highest honours, the prætorship and the consulship, only two complete years were interposed. To be chosen ædile a man must be at least thirty-seven, to be prætor at least forty, to be consul at least forty-three. But no settled regulations had yet been made. Many cases occur, both before and after the Second Punic War, in which men were elected to the consulship at a very early age, and before they had held any other curule office.

There can be little doubt that the ædileship was the least acceptable to an active and ambitious man. The chief duties of the ædiles related to the care of the public buildings (whence their name), the celebration of the games and festivals, the order of the streets, and other matters belonging to the department of police. But the quæstors were charged with business of a more important character. They were attached to the consuls and prætors as treasurers and paymasters. The tax-gatherers (publicani) paid into their hands all moneys received on account of the state, and out of these funds they disbursed all sums required for the use of the army, the fleet, or the civil administration. They were originally two in number, one for each consul; but very soon they were doubled, and at the conquest of Italy they were increased to eight. Two always remained at home to conduct the business of the treasury, the rest accompanied the consuls, and prætors, and proconsuls to the most important provinces.

The office of prætor was supplementary to that of the consuls, and was at first chiefly judicial. The original prætor was called “prætor urbanus,” or president of the city courts. A second was added about the time when Sicily became subject to Rome, and a new court was erected for the decision of cases in which foreigners were concerned: hence the new magistrate was called “prætor peregrinus.” For the government of the two first provinces, Sicily and Sardinia, two more prætors were created, and when Spain was constituted as a double province, two more, so that the whole number amounted to six. In the absence of the consuls the prætors presided in the senate and at the great assembly of the centuries. They often commanded reserve armies in the field, but they were always subordinate to the consuls; and to mark this subordinate position they were allowed only six lictors, whereas each consul was attended by twelve. Of the consuls it is needless to speak in this place. Their position as the supreme executive officers of the state is sufficiently indicated in every page of the history.

To obtain any of these high offices the Roman was obliged to seek the suffrages of his fellow-citizens. They were open to the ambition of every one whose name had been entered by the censors on the register of citizens, provided he had reached the required age. No office, except the censorship, was held for a longer period than twelve months: no officer received any pay or salary for his services. To defray expenses certain allowances were made from the treasury by order of the senate. To discharge routine duties and to conduct their correspondence, each magistrate had a certain number of clerks (scribæ) who formed what we should call the civil service.

But though the highest offices seemed thus absolutely open to every candidate, they were not so in practice. About the time of the First Punic War an alteration was made which, in effect, confined the curule offices to the wealthy families. The ædiles, for the expenses of the public games, had an allowance made them from the treasury. But at the time just mentioned this allowance was withdrawn. Yet the curule ædiles were still expected to maintain the honour of Rome by costly spectacles at the great Roman games, the Megalesian festival, and others of less consequence. Thus the choice of the people was limited to those who could buy their favour.

THE ARMY

The Romans had no standing army. Every Roman citizen between the complete ages of seventeen and forty-five, possessing property worth at least four thousand pounds of copper, was placed on the military roll. From this roll four legions, two for each consul, were enlisted every year, and in cases of necessity additional legions were raised. But at the close of the year’s campaign these legionary soldiers had a right to be relieved. Nor were there any fixed officers. Each legion had six tribunes and sixty centurions; but these were chosen, like the consuls and soldiers, fresh every year. The majority of the tribunes were elected at the comitia of the tribes, and the remainder were nominated by the consuls of the year, the only limitation to such choice being that those appointed should have served in the legions at least five campaigns. The centurions were then nominated by the tribunes, subject to the approval of the consuls.

Hence it appears that the Roman system, both in army and state, was strictly republican, that is, calculated to distribute public offices to as many citizens as possible, and to prevent power being absorbed by any single man or classes of men. There were no professed statesmen or officers, but there was a large number of men who had served for a time in each capacity. There was no standing army, but there was a good militia. There was no regularly trained soldiery, but every citizen had served in his time several campaigns, and every one was something of a soldier.

But no republic, however jealous, can rigidly carry out such a system; necessity will modify it in practice. During the Samnite Wars we find the same eminent men repeatedly elected to the consulship, notwithstanding a provision that no man should hold this high office except at intervals of ten years. Valerius Corvus was chosen consul at three-and-twenty; he held the office four times in fourteen years. So also Papirius Cursor, Fabius Maximus, and others held the same sovereign office repeatedly at short intervals. In the year 326 B.C. another plan was adopted to secure permanency. From this time it became common to continue a consul or prætor in his command for several successive years, with the title of proconsul or proprætor. The proconsul also was allowed to keep part of his old army, with his tribunes and centurions. The hope of booty and the desire to serve out his campaigns (for after a certain number of campaigns served the legionary was exempt, even though he was much under forty-five years) kept many soldiers in the field; and thus the nucleus of a regular army was formed by each commander. In the Punic Wars the ten years’ law was suspended altogether, and proconsuls were ordered to remain in office for years together.[b]

No more vivid picture of the Roman army could be given than that of Polybius, who contrasts the Greek phalanx with the Roman arrangement as follows:

POLYBIUS ON GREEK AND ROMAN BATTLE-ORDERS

Pyrrhus employed not only the arms but the troops of Italy; and ranged in alternate order a company of those troops and a cohort disposed in the manner of the phalanx, in all his battles with the Romans. And yet, even with the advantage of this precaution, he was never able to obtain any clear or decisive victory against them. It was necessary to premise these observations for the sake of preventing any objection that might be made to the truth of what we shall hereafter say.

It is easy to demonstrate, by many reasons, that while the phalanx retains its proper form and full power of action, no force is able to stand against it in front or support the violence of its attack. When the ranks are closed in order to engage, each soldier, as he stands with his arms, occupies a space of three feet. The spears, in their most ancient form, contained seventeen cubits in length. But, for the sake of rendering them more commodious in action, they have since been reduced to fourteen. Of these, four cubits are contained between the part which the soldier grasps in his hands and the lower end of the spear behind, which serves as a counterpoise to the part that is extended before him; and the length of this last part from the body of the soldier, when the spear is pushed forwards with both hands against the enemy, is, by consequence, ten cubits. From hence it follows that when the phalanx is closed in its proper form, and every soldier pressed within the necessary distance with respect to the man that is before him and upon his side, the spears of the fifth rank are extended to the length of two cubits, and those of the second, third, and fourth to a still greater length, beyond the foremost rank. The manner in which the men are crowded together in this method is marked by Homer in the following lines:

“Shield stuck to shield, to helmet helmet joined, And man to man; and at each nod that bowed High waving on their heads the glittering cones, Rattled the hair-crowned casques: so thick they stood.”

This description is not less exact than beautiful. It is manifest, then, that five several spears, differing each from the other in the length of two cubits, are extended before every man in the foremost rank. And when it is considered, likewise, that the phalanx is formed by sixteen in depth, it will be easy to conceive what must be the weight and violence of the entire body, and how great the force of its attack. In the ranks, indeed, that are behind the fifth, the spears cannot reach so far as to be employed against the enemy. In these ranks, therefore, the soldiers instead of extending their spears forward, rest them upon the shoulders of the men that are before them, with their points slanting upwards; and in this manner they form a kind of rampart which covers their heads, and secures them against those darts which may be carried in their flight beyond the first ranks, and fall upon those that are behind. But when the whole body advances to charge the enemy, even these hindmost ranks are of no small use and moment. For as they press continually upon those that are before them, they add, by their weight alone, great force to the attack, and deprive also the foremost ranks of the power of drawing themselves backwards or retreating. Such then is the disposition of the phalanx, with regard both to the whole and the several parts. Let us now consider the arms, and the order of battle, of the Romans, that we may see by the comparison in what respects they are different from those of the Macedonians.

To each of the Roman soldiers, as he stands in arms, is allotted the same space, likewise, of three feet. But as every soldier in the time of action is constantly in motion, being forced to shift his shield continually that he may cover any part of his body against which a stroke is aimed; and to vary the position of his sword, so as either to push, or to make a falling stroke; there must also be a distance of three feet, the least that can be allowed for performing these motions to advantage, between each soldier and the man that stands next to him, both upon his side and behind him. In charging, therefore, against the phalanx, every single Roman, as he has two Macedonians opposite to him, has also ten spears, which he is forced to encounter. But it is not possible for a single man to cut down these spears with his sword, before they can take their effect against him. Nor is it easy, on the other hand, to force his way through them. For the men that are behind add no weight to the pressure, nor any strength to the swords, of those that are in the foremost rank. It will be easy, therefore, to conceive that while the phalanx retains its own proper position and strength, no troops, as I before observed, can ever support the attack of it in front. To what cause, then, is it to be ascribed, that the Roman armies are victorious, and those defeated that employ the phalanx? The cause is this. In war, the times and the places of action are various and indefinite. But there is only one time and place, one fixed and determinate manner of action, that is suited to the phalanx. In the case, then, of a general action, if an enemy be forced to encounter with the phalanx in the very time and place which the latter requires, it is probable, in the highest degree, from the reasons that have been mentioned, that the phalanx always must obtain the victory. But if it be possible to avoid an engagement in such circumstances, and indeed it is easy to do it, there is then nothing to be dreaded from this order of battle. It is a well-known and acknowledged truth, that the phalanx requires a ground that is plain and naked, and free likewise from obstacles of every kind, such as trenches, breaks, obliquities, the brows of hills, or the channels of rivers; and that any of these are sufficient to impede it, and to dissolve the order in which it is formed. On the other hand again, it must be as readily allowed that, if it be not altogether impossible, it is at least extremely rare, to find a ground containing twenty stadia, or more, in its extent, and free from all these obstacles. But let it, however, be supposed that such a ground may perhaps be found. If the enemy, instead of coming down upon it, should lead their army through the country, plundering the cities, and ravaging the lands, of what use then will be the phalanx? As long as it remains in this convenient post, it not only has no power to succour its friends, but cannot even preserve itself from ruin. For the troops that are masters of the whole country without resistance will cut off from it all supplies. And if, on the other hand, it should relinquish its own proper ground, and endeavour to engage in action, the advantage is then so great against it that it soon becomes an easy prey to the enemy.

But, further, let it be supposed that the enemy will come down into this plain. Yet, if he brings not his whole army at once to receive the attack of the phalanx; or if, in the instant of the charge, he withdraws himself a little from the action, it is easy to determine what will be the consequence from the present practice of the Romans. For we now draw not our discourse from bare reasoning only, but from facts which have lately happened. When the Romans attack the phalanx in front, they never employ all their forces, so as to make their line equal to that of the enemy; but lead on a part only of their troops, and keep the rest of the army in reserve. Now, whether the troops of the phalanx break the line that is opposed to them, or whether themselves are broken, the order peculiar to the phalanx is alike dissolved. For if they pursue the fugitives, or if, on the other hand, they retreat and are pursued, in either case they are separated from the rest of their own body. And thus there is left some interval or space, which the reserve of the Roman army takes care to seize, and then charges the remaining part of the phalanx, not in front, but in flank, or in the rear. As it is easy then to avoid the times and circumstances that are advantageous to the phalanx, and as those, on the contrary, that are disadvantageous to it can never be avoided, it is certain that this difference alone must carry with it a decisive weight in the time of action.

To this it may be added, that the troops of the phalanx also are, like others, forced to march and to encamp in every kind of place; to be the first to seize the advantageous posts; to invest an enemy, or be invested; and to engage also in sudden actions, without knowing that the enemy was near. These things all happen in war, and either tend greatly to promote, or sometimes wholly determine the victory. But, at all such times, the Macedonian order of battle either cannot be employed, or is employed in a manner that is altogether useless.

For the troops of the phalanx, as must be evident, lose their strength when they engage in separate companies, or man with man. The Roman order, on the contrary, is never attended, even upon such occasions, with any disadvantage. Among the Romans every single soldier, when he is once armed and ready for service, is alike fitted to engage in any time and place, or upon any appearance of the enemy; and preserves always the same power, and the same capacity of action, whether he engages with the whole of the army, or only with a part; whether in separate companies, or singly man against man. As the parts, therefore, in the Roman order of battle, are so much better contrived for use than those in the other, so the success also in action must be greater in the one than the other.

If I have been rather long in examining this subject, it was because many of the Greeks, at the time when the Macedonians were defeated, regarded that event as a thing surpassing all belief; and because many others also may hereafter wish to know in what particular respects the order of phalanx is excelled by the arms and the order of battle of the Romans.[f]

THE SENATE

The chief officers both in state and army were continually liable to change, but there was a mighty power behind them, which did not change. This was the senate. The importance of this body can hardly be overstated. All the acts of the Roman republic ran in the name of the senate and people, as if the senate were half the state, though its number was but three hundred.

The senate of Rome was perhaps the most remarkable assembly that the world has ever seen. Its members held their seats for life; once senators always senators, unless they were degraded for some dishonourable cause. But the senatorial peerage was not hereditary. No father could transmit the honour to his son. Each man must win it for himself.[66]

The manner in which seats in the senate were obtained is tolerably well ascertained. The members of this august body, all--or nearly all--owed their places to the votes of the people. In theory, indeed, the censors still possessed the power really exercised by the kings and early consuls, of choosing the senators at their own will and pleasure. But official powers, however arbitrary, are always limited in practice. The censors followed rules established by ancient precedent, and chose the senate from those who had held the quæstorship and higher magistracies. In the interval between two censorships, that is in the course of five years, the number of exquæstors alone must have amounted to at least forty, and this was more than sufficient to fill the number of vacancies which would have occurred in ordinary times. The first qualification then for a seat in the senate was that of office. It is probable that to the qualification of office there was added a second, of property. Such was certainly the case in later times. A third limitation, that of age, followed from the rule that the senate was recruited from the lists of official persons. No one could be a senator till he was about thirty.

Such was the composition of this great council during the best times of the republic. It formed a true aristocracy. Its members, almost all, possessed the knowledge derived from the discharge of public office and from mature age. They were recommended to their places by popular election, and yet secured from subserviency to popular will by the amount of their property. It was not by a mere figure of speech that the minister of Pyrrhus called the Roman senate “an assembly of kings.” Many of its members had exercised what was in effect sovereign power; many were preparing to exercise it. The power of the senate was equal to its dignity.

In regard to legislation, it exercised an absolute control over the centuriate assembly, because no law could be submitted to its votes which had not originated in the senate; and thus the vote of the centuries could not do more than place a veto on a senatorial decree.[67]

In respect to foreign affairs, the power of the senate was absolute, except in declaring war or concluding treaties of peace,--matters which were submitted to the votes of the people. They assigned to the consuls and prætors their respective provinces of administration and command; they fixed the amount of the troops to be levied every year from the list of Roman citizens, and of the contingents to be furnished by the Italian allies. They prolonged the command of a general or superseded him at pleasure. They estimated the sums necessary for the military chest; nor could a sesterce be paid to the general without their order. If a consul proved refractory, they could transfer his power for the time to a dictator; even if his success had been great, they could refuse him the honour of a triumph. Ambassadors to foreign states were chosen by them and from them; all disputes in Italy or beyond seas were referred to their sovereign arbitrament.

In the administration of home affairs the regulation of religious matters was in their hands; they exercised superintendence over the pontiffs and other ministers of public worship. They appointed days for extraordinary festivals, for thanksgiving after victory, for humiliation after defeat. But, which was of highest importance, all the financial arrangements of the state were left to their discretion. The censors, at periods usually not exceeding five years in duration, formed estimates of annual outlay, and provided ways and means for meeting these estimates; but always under the direction of the senators. In all these matters, both of home and foreign administration, their decrees had the power of law. In times of difficulty they had the power of suspending all rules of law, by the appointment of a dictator.

Besides these administrative functions, they might resolve themselves into a high court of justice for the trial of extraordinary offences. But in this matter they obtained far more definite authority by the Calpurnian law, which about fifty years later established high courts of justice, in which prætors acted as presiding judges, and senators were jurymen.

THE CENTURIATE ASSEMBLY

At some time between the decemvirate and the Second Punic War, a complete reform had been made in the centuriate assembly, as organised by Servius. When this was we know not. Nor do we know the precise nature of the reform. This only is certain, that the distribution of the whole people into tribes was taken as the basis of division in the centuriate assembly as well as in the assembly of the tribes, and yet that the division into classes and centuries was retained, as well as into seniores and juniores.

It may be assumed that the whole people was convened according to its division into thirty-five tribes; that in each tribe account was taken of the five classes, arranged according to an ascending scale of property, which, however, had been greatly altered from that attributed to Servius; and that in each tribe each of the five classes was subdivided into two centuries, one of seniores, or men between forty-five and sixty, one of juniores, or men between eighteen and forty-five. On the whole, then, with the addition of eighteen centuries of knights, there would be 368 centuries. This plan, though it allowed far less influence to wealth than the plan of Servius, would yet leave a considerable advantage to the richer classes. For it is plain that the two centuries of the first class in each tribe would contain far fewer members than the two centuries of the second class, those of the second fewer than those of the third, and all those of the first four together, probably, fewer than those of the fifth. Yet these four classes, having in all 280 or (with the knights) 298 centuries, would command an absolute majority; for the question was still decided by the majority of centuries.

THE ASSEMBLY OF THE TRIBES

While the centuriate assembly was becoming more popular in its constitution, a still more democratic body had come into existence.[68]

There can be no doubt that when the centuriate assembly was restored by the patricians after the expulsion of Tarquinius,[69] it was intended to be the sole legislative body. The more recent legislative assembly of the tribes was a spontaneous growth of popular will, not contemplated by statesmen. The tribe assembly, originally intended to conduct the business of the plebeian order, gradually extended its power over the whole body politic; and its ordinances (plebiscita) became laws.

The tribunes were originally invested with political authority for the purpose of protecting the persons of the plebeians from the arbitrary punishments inflicted by the patrician magistrates. It was no doubt intended that this authority should be only suspensive, so as to prevent sudden acts of violence. But the tribunes soon assumed the license of standing between plebeians and the law. Thus they established the celebrated right of intercession, which in course of time they extended to all matters. They forbade trials, stopped elections, put a veto on the passing of laws. So far, however, their power was only negative. But when the tribe assembly obtained legislative rights, the tribunes obtained a positive authority. The power of the tribunes and of the tribes implied each other. The plebeian assembly was dead without able and resolute tribunes; the tribunes were impotent without the democracy.

This relation was at once established when the election of the tribunes was committed to the tribes themselves. The tribunes soon began to summon the tribes to discuss political questions; and the formidable authority which they now wielded appeared in the overthrow of the decemvirate and the recognition of the tribe assembly as a legislative body. The political powers then gained by the Valerio-Horatian laws were confirmed and extended by the popular dictators, Q. Publilius Philo and Q. Hortensius.

Thus the Roman constitution presents us with the apparent anomaly of two distinct legislative assemblies, each independent of the other. Nor were any distinct provinces of action assigned to each. This being so, we should expect to find the one clashing with the other; to hear of popular laws emanating from the one body met with a counter-project from the other. But no such struggles are recorded. The only way in which it can be known that a particular law is due to the more popular or to the more aristocratic assembly is by looking to the name of the mover, by which every law was designated. If the name be that of a tribune, the law must be referred to the tribe assembly. If the name be that of a consul, prætor, or dictator, the law must be referred to the centuriate assembly.[70] What, then, were the causes which prevented collisions which appear inevitable?

First, it must be remembered that, though the centuriate assembly had been made more democratic, yet the tribe assembly was very far indeed from a purely democratic body. In the latter, the suffrages were taken by the head in each of the thirty-five tribes, and if eighteen tribes voted one way, and seventeen another, the question was decided by the votes of the eighteen. But the eighteen rarely, if ever, contained an absolute majority of citizens. For the whole population of Rome, with all the freedmen, were thrown into four tribes only, and if these four tribes were in the minority, there can be no doubt that the minority of tribes represented a majority of voters. Thus, even in the more popular assembly, there was not wanting a counterpoise to the will of the mere majority.

A still more effective check to collision is to be found in the fact that all measures proposed to the tribe assembly by the tribunes, as well as the centuriate laws proposed by the consuls or other ministers of the senate, must first receive the sanction of the senate itself. The few exceptions which occur are where tribunes propose a resolution granting to a popular consul the triumph refused by the senate. But these exceptions only serve to prove the rule.[71]

Our surprise that no collision is heard of between the two assemblies now takes another form, and we are led to ask how it came that, if all measures must be first approved by the senate, any substantial power at all could belong to the tribes? It would seem that they also, like the centuriate assembly, could at most exercise only a veto on measures emanating from the great council.

That this result did not follow, is due to the rude but formidable counter-check provided by the tribunate. The persons of the tribunes were inviolable; but the tribunes had power to place even consuls under arrest. By the advance of their intercessory prerogative they gradually built up an authority capable of over-riding all other powers in the state.

We are now better able to appreciate the position of the two assemblies as legislative bodies. The tribe assembly was presided over by officers of its own choice, invested with authority generally sufficient to extort from the senate leave to bring in laws of a popular character. No such power resided in the presidents of the centuriate assembly; for the consuls were little more than ministers of the senate. The centuriate assembly more and more became a passive instrument in the hands of the senate. The tribe assembly rose to be the organ of popular opinion.

In elections, the centuriate assembly always retained the right of choosing the chief officers of state, the consuls, prætors, and censors. The tribe assembly, originally, elected only their own tribunes and the plebeian ædiles. But in no long time they obtained the right of choosing also the curule ædiles, the quæstors, the great majority of the legionary tribunes, and all inferior officers of state. But as the centuries were, generally, obliged to elect their prætors and consuls out of those who had already been elected quæstors and ædiles by the tribes, it is manifest that the elective power of the former was controlled and overridden by the latter. In conferring extraordinary commands, such as that of Scipio in Spain, the tribes were always consulted, not the centuries.

JUSTICE

In regard to jurisdiction, it has before been noticed that Rome was tender of the personal liberties of her citizens. Various laws of appeal provided for an open trial before his peers of anyone charged with grave offences, such as would subject him to stripes, imprisonment, or death. Now the centuries alone formed a high court of justice for the trial of citizens; the tribe assembly never achieved this dangerous privilege. But the tribunician power offered to the chief officers of the tribes a ready means of interference; for they could use their right of intercession to prevent a trial, and thus screen real offenders from justice. But more frequently they acted on the offensive. There was a merciful provision of the law of Rome, by which a person liable to a state prosecution might withdraw from Italian soil at any time before his trial, and become the citizen of some allied city, such as Syracuse or Pergamus. But the tribunes sometimes threw culprits into prison before trial, as in the case of App. Claudius the decemvir and his father. Or, after a culprit had sought safety in voluntary exile, they proposed a bill of outlawry, by which he was “interdicted from fire and water” on Italian soil, and all his goods were confiscated. Offending magistrates were also fined heavily, without trial, by special plebiscita, which resembled the bills of attainder familiar to the reader of English history.

These encroachments of the tribunes were met by other unconstitutional measures on the part of the senate. To bar the action of the tribunes and to suspend the laws of appeal, they at one time had constant recourse to dictatorial appointments. These appointments ceased after the Second Punic War; but after this, in critical times, the senate assumed the right of investing the consuls with dictatorial power.

It must not here be forgotten that of late years circumstances had greatly exalted the power of the senate and proportionally diminished the power of the tribunes. In great wars, especially such as threaten the existence of a community, the voice of popular leaders is little heard. Reforms are forgotten. Agitation ceases. Each man applies his energies to avert present danger, rather than to achieve future improvements. The senate under the leading of old Fabius Cunctator ruled absolutely for several years. Even elections to the consulate, which he deemed inopportune, were set aside--a thing almost without example, before and after, in Roman constitutional history. Fabius was at length superseded by young Scipio, who in his turn became absolute, and at the close of the war might have made himself dictator, had he been so pleased. At present, popular spirit had fallen asleep. Constitutional opposition there was none. The senate seemed likely to retain in peace the power which war had necessarily thrown into their hands.

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT

At the close of the Hannibalic War, Rome was in possession, nominally, of five provinces, which were Sicily, Sardinia, the Gallic coast of Umbria, with Hither and Farther Spain. But of these provincial possessions Sardinia and the Spains were almost to be conquered again; and Gallic Umbria was shortly after absorbed into Italy, while the magnificent district between the Alps and the Gulf of Genoa became the province of Gaul. Sicily was the only province as yet constituted on a solid foundation. To Sicily, therefore, we will confine our remarks; a course which is further recommended by the fact that we are better informed with regard to Sicily than with regard to any other of the foreign possessions of the republic.

We must call to mind that, in speaking of Sicily as of Italy, we are not to think of the country as a whole, but as broken up into a number of civic communities, each being more or less isolated from the rest. At the close of the First Punic War, when the Romans had expelled the Carthaginians from the island, the greater part of it was formed into a province; while the kingdom of Hiero, consisting of Syracuse with six dependent communities, was received into free alliance with Rome. But in the Second Punic War, Syracuse and all Sicily were reconquered by Marcellus and Lævinus, and the form of the provincial communities was altered. The cities of Sicily were now divided into three classes. First, there were those cities which had been taken by siege: these, twenty-six in number, were mulcted of their territory, which became part of the public land of Rome; their former citizens had perished in war, or had been sold as slaves, or were living as serfs on the soil which they had formerly owned. Secondly, there was a large number of communities, thirty-four in all, which retained the fee-simple of their land, but were burdened with payment of a tithe of corn, wine, oil, and other produce, according to a rule established by Hiero, in the district subject to Syracuse. Thirdly, there were eight communities left independent, which were, like the Italians, free from all imposts.

These states were all left in possession of municipal institutions; they had the right of self-government in all local matters, with popular assemblies and councils, such as were common in Greek communities. But all were subject to the authority of a governor, sent from Rome, with the title of prætor, whose business it was to adjudicate in all matters where the interests of Rome or of Roman citizens were concerned, and, above all, to provide for the regular payment of the imposts. In Sicily, which in those days was a well-cultivated and productive country, this department was so important that the prætor was assisted by two quæstors, one stationed at Syracuse, the other at Lilybæum.

Communities which, during the wars of conquest, had joined the invaders at once or at a critical point in the war, were left free from all ordinary and annual imposts. Cities that were taken by force became, with their territory, the absolute property of Rome. Between these extremes there was a large class, which retained full possession of their lands, and complete local independence, but were subject to the payment of yearly imposts to the imperial treasury, which were levied on the produce of their land. All alike were obliged to contribute towards the expenses of the prætor’s court and government.

TAXATION

The most important distinction between the Italian and provincial dominions of Rome consisted in taxation. It was a general rule that all Italian land was tax-free; and that all provincial land, except such as was specified in treaties or in decrees of the senate, was subject to tax. Hence the exemption of land from taxation was known by the technical name of Jus Italicum or the Right of Italy.

This last distinction implies that the imperial revenues were raised chiefly from the provinces. We will take this opportunity of giving a brief account of the different sources from which the revenues of Rome were raised in the early period.

The imperial treasury was in the ancient temple of Saturn, situated at the end of the Forum beneath the Capitol. Here the two quæstors of the city deposited all the moneys received on account of the state, and no disbursements could be made without an order from an officer authorised by the senate. The sources of receipt were twofold, ordinary and extraordinary.

The ordinary revenues consisted of the proceeds and rent of public property, custom duties, tolls, and the like, and the tax levied on provincial lands.

The property of the state was, as has often been noticed, very large. Much of the public land, however, had been distributed to colonies, and the rent received for the rest seems to have been small. Yet the quantity of undistributed land in Italy and Sicily was so great that it must have yielded a considerable revenue. Besides this, the fisheries, with all mines and quarries, were considered public property. Even the manufacture of salt was a state monopoly from the censorship of M. Livius, who thenceforth bore the name of Salinator, or the salt-maker.

Besides these rents and monopolies, custom duties were levied on certain kinds of goods, both exports and imports, and tolls (called portoria) were demanded for passengers and goods carried by canals or across bridges and ferries.

There was also an ad valorem duty of five per cent imposed on the manumission of slaves. This was not carried to the account of the year, but laid by as a reserve fund, not to be used except in great emergencies.

The revenue derived from the provincial land tax was only beginning to be productive, but in a few years it formed the chief income of the republic.

It appears that for the civil government of the republic the ordinary revenues were found sufficient. The current expenses, indeed, were small. The Italian and provincial communities defrayed the expenses of their own administration. Rome herself, as we have said, claimed the services of her statesmen and administrators without paying them any public salaries.

In time of war, however, the ordinary revenues failed, and to meet the expenses of each year’s campaign an extraordinary tax was levied as required. This was the tributum, or property tax. Its mode of assessment marks its close association with war expenses. We have seen above that the whole arrangement of the centuriate assembly was military. Not the least important of these was the census or register of all citizens, arranged according to their age and property. It was made out by the censors at intervals of five years, and served during the succeeding period as the basis of taxation. The necessities of each year determined the amount to be levied. It was usually one in a thousand, or one-tenth per cent; but once, in the Second Punic War, the rate was doubled. The senate had the power of calling for this payment.

At length it became necessary to call on wealthy individuals to furnish seamen, and to advance money by way of loan; and contracts were formed with commercial companies to furnish stores and clothing for the army, in return for which they received orders on the treasury payable at some future time. The obligations thus contracted were not left as a national debt. The first instalment of repayment was made in the year 204 B.C., immediately after the submission of Carthage; the second and third at successive intervals of four years.

At length, in the year 167 B.C., the payments exacted from the provincials became so large that the senate was enabled to dispense with extraordinary taxes altogether; and thus the ordinary revenues sufficed for the expenses of all future wars, as well as for the civil administration.

The allied communities of Italy, the municipia and colonies, were free from all direct burdens, except in time of war. Then each community was required, according to a scale furnished by its own censor, to supply contingents of soldiery to the Roman army, such contingents bearing a proportion to the number of legions levied by the Romans themselves in any given year. The Italian soldiery were fed by Rome; but their equipments and pay were provided at the expense of their own states; and therefore it is plain that every Italian community was indirectly subject to a war tax. But though these communities suffered the burdens of war like Rome, they did not like Rome profit by war. The Roman treasury repaid taxes raised for the conduct of war. But such repayment was confined to Romans. The soldiers of the Latin and Italian towns obtained their share of booty; but their citizens at home had no hope of repayment. Moneys paid into the Roman treasury were applicable to Roman purposes only. The Italians, though they shared the danger and the expense, were not allowed to share the profit. Here was a fertile field for discontent, which afterwards bore fatal fruits.

In the provinces, on the other hand, little military service was required, but direct imposts were levied instead.

This system was itself galling and onerous. It was as if England were to defray the expenses of her own administration from the proceeds of a tax levied upon her Indian empire. But the system was made much worse by the way in which the taxes were collected. This was done by contract. Every five years the taxes of the provinces were put up to public auction; and that company of contractors which outbid the rest would receive the contract. The farmers of the taxes, therefore, offered to pay a certain sum to the imperial treasury for the right of collecting the taxes and imposts of Sicily, gave security for payment, and then made what profit they could out of the taxes collected. The members of these companies were called publicani, and the farmers-general, or chiefs of the companies, bore the name of mancipes. It is manifest that this system offered a premium on extortion: for the more the tax collectors could wring from the provincials, the more they would have for themselves. The extortions incident to this system form a principal topic in the provincial history of Rome.[b]

SOCIAL CONDITIONS: THE ARISTOCRACY AND THE PEOPLE

Since the year 366 distinctions between the patricians and plebeians had been legally waived, but the importance of the patrician class still continued. The victory of the plebeians led to no democracy. The patrician families who had stood alone in the highest dignities in the state retained their prominent position; but a number of plebeian families came forward who shared with them the state offices and joined in their labours for the greatness of the country. Thus in the course of years a new aristocracy was evolved, a kind of official nobility (nobilitas) of the families whose forefathers had occupied such high positions in the state as those of curule magistrates, ædiles, prætors, and consuls, and whose distinctions descended from father to son.

For a long time there had been this sort of aristocracy of merit; elevation being due to neither birth nor name, but to the merits and brilliant achievements of ancestors, the sons zealously treading in the footprints of their fathers.

In Rome the power of the family life was great. It exercised the same potent influence upon the young men as public life did in Greece. The sons conformed to the standard furnished by the life and teaching of their fathers and elder relatives, and in their life at home and abroad they acquired the knowledge and capacity which fitted them for the government of the state and the leadership of armies. A youth of moderate gifts could thus make himself a capable statesman and general, and could easily attain to the same official rank as his father. But a man of the lower class seldom succeeded. It was only by the greatest talent that a new man (homo novus) could rise to any high office, unless his rise was due to the democratic opposition, which from a feeling of spite to the upper class insisted on seeing equality of power prevail.

It was under the government of this new aristocracy that Rome laid the foundation of her new world-wide power. The subjection of Italy was completed and the Roman dominion had been extended over the majority of the countries of the Mediterranean Sea. But it was just this ever increasing extension of the empire which forcibly impelled the nobilitas to unite themselves in an exclusive community and so to get the reins of government into their own hands. Continual wars gave rise to the necessity of having a group of men of more than ordinary reliability who could devote themselves exclusively to state affairs.

Before the Punic Wars the aristocracy had to a certain extent formed itself into a party against which the people soon gathered in opposition.

The nobility used their influential position to appropriate the whole administration of the state. In the senate the exclusive circle of noble families ruled, and the highest official positions were given only to men of their party. The censorship, a position of the greatest power and consideration, was an important office in their hands; it was regarded as the chief of all state dignities. Hence the aristocracy used every means to prevent a man of the plebeian order from acquiring that position. The duty of the censors was to keep the senate as free as possible from all unaristocratic elements, for they were empowered to nominate the members of the senate and to disqualify for admission to it. There was another way of entering the senate besides that of nomination by the censor; anyone who had occupied a curule chair was entitled to a seat and a voice in the senate. But the choice of the higher officials was in a certain degree in the hands of the consul, who generally belonged to the aristocracy; and as president of the centuriate assembly he could reject any candidate of whom he did not approve.

The censors also appointed the knights and therefore formed them into a purely aristocratic body. As long as they cast the earliest vote in the centuriate assembly, the nobility had a considerable advantage there. Even after this ceased, the knights formed in the assembly a distinct and distinguished party, and as the flower of the nobility they likewise formed in the army a brilliant cavalry corps. As in this corporation the nobility regarded itself as something quite distinct from the rest of the people, the ruling class tried by other external signs to distinguish themselves from the masses and to represent themselves as a superior caste.

So from the year 194 the seats of the senatorial class were kept separate from those of other people at the public festivals.

When the nobility got the government into their hands, they moulded it in conformity with their own interests. In order to raise the position of the officials as high as possible they only increased the number when absolutely necessary, and never in proportion to the increase of business consequent on the extension of the territories of the republic. It was only from the most pressing necessity that in the year 242 the work of a single prætor, the director of judicial business, was divided between two, so that the town prætor (prætor urbanus) had the judicial business of the Roman citizens, and the foreign prætor (prætor peregrinus) settled questions between aliens or between aliens and Roman citizens. After the conquest of Sicily, Sardinia, and the two Spains, four more prætors were added for the management of those provinces.

But after the year 149 they remained as a rule in Rome during their year of office to preside at the commission of inquiry respecting criminal matters introduced during that time, and then they went in the following year as pro-prætors to the provinces.

The choice of officials was, moreover, limited by the avoidance as much as possible of the re-election to the consulate. From 265 the censor was never twice the same, and the custom was made a law whereby the curule (lex annalis of year 180) officials were appointed in a certain degree by grade and after a certain interval.

An ædile, as we have seen, must be at least thirty-seven, a prætor forty, a consul forty-three. The right was therefore withdrawn from the voters, in case of need, to take the most competent and serviceable man without regard to seniority. The measure of worth for the selection of officials was no longer competence but birth and seigniority, and the nobility regarded office as its due right, not disdaining, however, to get from the people all they could by the arts of flattery.

The government of this official nobility exhibited in foreign policy all its time-worn energy, which was only too often united with unworthy cunning and untrustworthiness, but the administration of internal affairs became torpid and bad. The majority belied the claims of their office, mostly careful on the one hand not to forfeit by any inconsiderate or stern measure the favour of the people to whom they were indebted for their posts and from whom they expected future favours, while on the other hand they did not hesitate to run counter to such of their colleagues as might occasionally wish to render the people reciprocal service.

The late wars had shown the weakness of the generals and the consequent lack of military discipline. In the wars of this period so much leave and furlough had been granted for money that the forces were not ready for any undertaking. Instead of fighting the enemy, generals and soldiers laid their allies and friends under contribution.

When Scipio Africanus took the command against Numantia he sent away from the camp not less than two thousand women, a number of sorcerers and priests, and a whole tribe of traders, cooks, and other servants, so sunk was the army in debauchery and effeminacy. Cowardice and idleness were so deep-seated that it required many months and the most stringent measures to make the army fit to take the field. The change in the spirit of the government was also evident in the treatment of the Roman subjects in Italy and beyond Italy. The Italian communities which had not the full rights of Roman citizens--and they were the majority--were in a bad plight. The communities which had joined Hannibal were almost all condemned to slavery, and the rest were forced to render military service whilst the Roman citizens profited by their labours and kept themselves as distinct from them as the nobility did from the citizens and the rest of the people. The Italian allies were almost excluded from the rights of Roman citizens.

The foreign provinces which at first were treated with a certain consideration were soon in a worse position than the Italians. The governors, who had a royal position in their provinces, and were almost uncontrolled by the senate, allowed themselves the greatest licence, and used the short time of their office to enrich themselves. They indemnified themselves for the expense they had been put to in Rome in order to obtain their posts, and amassed the means for life-long enjoyment.

As the governors were not paid, they had a claim upon all kinds of services and supplies from the provinces, and this they abused in every way. They robbed shamelessly when there was anything to get, and what the governors did on a large scale their numberless subordinates did on a small one. When a province had to support an army it had much to suffer. Requisitions and levies were endless, and the people were often attacked and plundered by the general and soldiers as if they had been the enemy. To these evils were added the tax collectors and money changers who came like a plague into the country, and plied their bloodsucking callings at will under the protection of the governor. But the persecuted districts revenged themselves on their oppressors. The great wealth taken by the nobility from the provinces to Rome, the luxury and immorality of the officials and the armies, which had such a pernicious influence on the morality of high and low, became known in the uncivilised lands of the East, in Greece, and in Asia. The rich nobility was steeped in debauchery and love of pleasure, and displayed a boundless luxury against which the laws repeatedly enacted strove in vain. And the people also, since there was no country of which Rome stood in awe, began to lose its old energy and to be gradually depraved by the love of enjoyment, recklessness, and idleness.

Certainly there was always a party of honourable, independent citizens; but a sunken, impoverished populace who pandered to the nobility gradually gathered about them. The nobles took care to gain the favour of the mob by flattery, festivities, donations of corn, and even by general bribery, so as to rule in the comitium through them, and secure the official posts. It was almost impossible now for a man who was not rich to obtain office.[c]

SLAVES AND FREEMEN

The age of which we have been treating, from the Samnite War to the close of the Punic Wars, was always considered by the Romans, and is still considered by their admirers, to have been the golden age of the republic. A people which handed down the legends of Cincinnatus, Curius, Fabricius, Regulus, can hardly have failed to practise the thrift and honesty which they admired. The characters are no doubt idealised; but they may be taken as types of their times. In the Roman country districts, and still more in the Apennine valleys, the habits of life were no doubt simple, honest, and perhaps rude, of Sabine rather than of Hellenic character, the life of countrymen rather than of dwellers in the town.

It has been remarked that the Italians, like the Greeks, must be regarded as members of cities or civic communities. But the walled towns which were the centres of each community were mostly the residence of the chief men and their dependents and slaves, while the mass of the free citizens were dispersed over the adjoining country district, dwelling on their own farms, and resorting to the town only to bring their produce to market or to take their part in the political business transacted at the general assemblies. Such was the case at Rome in early times. The great patrician lords with their families dwelt in strong houses or castles on the Capitoline, Palatine, and Quirinal hills, while their clients thronged the lower parts adjacent. As the plebeians increased in wealth and power, their great men established themselves at first upon the Cælian and Aventine, and afterwards indiscriminately on all the hills.

In the country districts of Rome the greater part of the land was still in the hands of small proprietors, who tilled their own lands by the aid of their sons and sons-in-law. In the earliest times the dimensions of these plebeian holdings were incredibly small, an allotment being computed at not more than two jugera (about 1¼ acres). Even with very fertile soil and unremitting labour, such a piece of land could barely maintain a family. But to eke out the produce of their tilled lands, every free citizen had a right to feed a certain number of cattle on the common pastures at the expense of a small payment to the state; and in this way even a large family might live in rude abundance. In no long time, however, the plebeian allotments were increased to seven jugera (about 4½ acres); and this increase of tilled lands indicates a corresponding improvement in the habits and comforts of the people--an improvement attributed, as all benefits conferred on the plebeians in early times were attributed, to King Servius. And this long remained the normal size of the small properties then so common in the Roman district. The farm and public pasture produced all that the family required--not only food, but flax and wool, which the matron and her daughters dressed and spun and wove, wood and stone for building and farm implements, everything except metals and salt, which were (as we have seen) state monopolies.

But a golden age generally comes to an end with increase of population. Mouths to be fed multiply; the yeomen sell their little farms and emigrate, or become satisfied with a lower scale of living as hired labourers. The Romans had a remedy for these evils in a home colonisation. The immense quantity of public land in the hands of the state, with the necessity of securing newly-conquered districts of Italy, led to the foundation of numerous colonies between the Samnite and Punic wars, and extended the means of material well-being to every one who was willing and able to work; and this not only for Romans, but for Latins and others, who were invited to become citizens of the colony.

If, however, the superfluous sons of families settled on lands in Samnium, or Apulia, or Cisalpine Gaul, others must have lost these lands; and the question naturally occurs: What had become of these people? This question brings us to the worst point in ancient society--that is, slavery.

It was the practice of ancient nations to regard all conquered persons as completely in the light of booty, as cattle or lifeless goods. If indeed the enemy surrendered without a blow, they became subjects. But those who were taken after a struggle were for the most part sold into slavery. In early times this evil was small. Nor was it to be expected that the small proprietors could afford either to buy or to maintain slaves. They were acquired by the rich patricians and plebeians, who held large tracts of public land, or who had acquired large estates of their own. Before the decemvirate, their debtors were their slaves. But this custom had been long abolished, and it was conquest which supplied slaves to the rich. After the conquest of Samnium, thirty-six thousand persons are said to have been sold. After the reduction of Cisalpine Gaul and Sicily, still larger numbers were brought to the hammer. These were the wretches on whose lands the poorer sort of Roman citizens settled. The slaves may generally be divided into two great classes, the urban or city slaves, and those of the country. They had no civil rights; they could not contract legal marriage; they had no power over their children; they could hold no property in their own name; their very savings were not their own, but held by consent of their master; all law proceedings ran in the name of their masters. For crimes committed, they were tried by the public courts; and the masters were held liable for the damage done, but only to the extent of the slave’s value. To kill, maim, or maltreat a slave was considered as damage to his master, and could only be treated as such. No pain or suffering inflicted on a slave was punishable, unless loss had thereby accrued to the owner.

But human nature is too strong always to fulfil conditions so cruel. There is no doubt that the slaves of the household were often treated with kindness; often they became the confidential advisers of their masters. The steward or bailiff of a rich man’s estate, his villicus, was a person of considerable power. Still the mass of the slaves, especially the agricultural slaves, were treated as mere cattle. Some poor drudges were the slaves of other slaves, such ownership being allowed by the masters. Cato recommends to sell off old and infirm slaves, so as to save the expense of keeping live lumber. Englishmen feel a pang at seeing a fine horse consigned in his old age to the drivers of public carriages; but Romans wasted no such sympathy on slaves who had spent their lives and strength in cultivating their lands. Notwithstanding the better treatment of the house slaves, the humane Cicero reproached himself with feeling too much sorrow for one who had been for years his tried and faithful servant. It was in the next half-century, however, that slaves increased so much in Italy as to produce great effect upon the social condition of the people. At present the evil was only in its beginning.

Here it must be remarked that the practice of giving liberty to slaves was very common. The prospect of freedom as a reward for good conduct must have done much to prevent Roman bondsmen from sinking into that state of animal contentment and listless indifference which marked the negro slaves of later times.

The freedmen filled no mean space in Roman society. Among them were to be found able and well-educated men, who had held a high station in their native country, and often obtained great influence over the minds of their masters. Freedmen exercised most branches of retail trade, and formed the shopkeepers and petty traders and artisans of Rome; for Roman citizens, however poor, could in early times condescend to no business except that of agriculture. Rich men carried on trades by means of their slaves and freedmen; in later times freedmen often worked as artists under some patrician roof, and many of the early poets were freedmen.

Here, then, we trace the beginning of a great distinction, that afterwards was more strongly marked, between the population of the city and the population of the country--between the rustic and the civic tribes.[b]

THE ROMAN FAMILY: WOMEN AND MARRIAGE

The Roman woman independent of the marriage tie was placed under the authority of her father or of a guardian.

The father’s authority was absolute. All the members of an ancient Roman family--father, mother, children, and daughters-in-law--made up a close association under one ruler or head. All the wealth which came to a family was thrown into a kind of common stock and formed but one patrimony. The sole head of this association, the one master of the common resources, was the father. Until now we have seen no difference made between the children of the two sexes; paternal power presses with equal weight on the son and on the daughter, and holds them both down to the same level. Besides, the daughter like the son can sign a legal contract; like him she has her share of the family patrimony, a guaranteed share that only a formal disinheritance can take from her. More liberal than the oriental or Greek law, Roman law granted equal rights in the paternal inheritance.

But as soon as the paternal power has disappeared, the legal differences between the two sexes begin to show themselves; the son, if he is of age, becomes independent and master of his actions, the daughter, on the contrary, whatever her age, remains under the power of a guardian.

What was that perpetual guardianship of women which the Romans themselves considered as one of the most fundamental institutions of their law? Was it a protecting guardianship like that of minors? Was it a despotic power like that of the father of a family? Neither one nor the other. To grasp its real character, we must go back to the causes which led to its establishment.

In the almost patriarchal constitution of ancient Rome, the preservation of families was of great public importance and the laws were always made to benefit it. The domestic ties, always so close whilst the head of the family lived, were not broken at his death; the hereditary possessions, whilst they were divided amongst the children, did not the less remain the patrimony of the family; the perpetual worship due to the spirit of the ancestors and to the household gods remained a common debt. But supposing that amongst the children there was a daughter, the hereditary share she was to receive would not be safe in her hands; it was to be feared that one day she would try to enrich the family she had entered at the expense of her own. It was to guard against this danger, it was to perpetuate in each family, together with the preservation of hereditary possessions, the memory of its ancestors and the glory or dignity of the house, that the Romans deprived woman of the free possession of her property and placed her under the perpetual guardianship of her agnates. This guardianship was not, then, established in the interest of woman, on account of her weakness and natural incapacity; it was established against her and in the interests of the guardians themselves.

This view, we must admit, has received many contradictions even in antiquity. Cicero, Ulpian, Isidorus de Sevilla, are unanimous in saying if the law has placed women under guardianship, it is on account of the weakness of their sex, their ignorance, their inexperience, their frivolity.

But listen to Gaius, the only writer amongst the ancients who discusses and sifts the question: “The vulgar opinion,” he says, “is that women must be directed by guardians, because their minds are too shallow to govern themselves. This guardianship has been established in the interest of the guardians, so that the women, whose presumptive heirs they are, can neither deprive them of their inheritance by a will, nor cripple it by gifts or by debts.”

Is it necessary to add another proof to the authority of Gaius? Here is one which seems irrefutable. Woman was placed under the paternal power, and, as has been already said, could make a legal contract. Once placed under a guardian, on the contrary, she can no longer contract debts without her guardian’s permission. Why this strange contradiction? Why should woman, capable of acting whilst she is under a father’s authority, become incapable as soon as she is freed from that authority? In the two cases, her frivolity, her weakness are evidently the same; here is the only difference: the daughter under paternal authority has no wants, and in indulging herself she only pledges herself; but the orphan or emancipated girl has a patrimony; if she pleased herself she would engage her patrimony and in this way compromise the inheritance of her family, of her future heirs. This reveals to us the spirit of the law. Woman is placed under a guardian because she has a fortune to leave behind her; it is done to protect her heirs and not to insure her own protection.

It will now be guessed to whom the law gave the guardianship; perhaps only to her next heirs, that is to say to her agnates, her nearest relatives; if she were a freed slave, to her masters. For natural guardians it was not an office, but a right--a family possession. They had no accounts to render; if they were infirm, in a state of infancy, idiocy, or insanity, they would still retain their rights to this guardianship, except that in that case it would be executed by deputy. But if they could not be deprived of this right they could resign it, and give it to some one in their place; the legitimate guardian could dispose of his ward by an in jure cessio, as he could dispose of his house or field.

The guardian’s authority was not quite similar to the parental authority. Its limits were rigorously determined by the very purpose of guardianship. The guardian had all the power necessary to safeguard the woman’s patrimony, nothing less--but nothing more.

Thus in the first case, his authority only extends to the fortune of the woman, not to her person. He has no control over the conduct of his ward, nor is it his prerogative to watch over her behaviour, or inquire into those of her acts which only affect her personally, and do not touch her fortune. For example, in the matter of marriage, all the pecuniary agreements which so often accompany it have to be authorised by the guardian; his consent is necessary, either to fix the dowry, or for the conventio in manum, which involves, as will be seen, a kind of general community of interest. But as for the marriage itself, how can it concern or prejudice the interests of the guardian, since the agnates, and not the children of the marriage, will inherit at the woman’s death? Thus the guardian’s authority is not necessary, either for the celebration of the marriage or in the choice of a husband. The woman herself chooses her husband, assisted sometimes, according to her age, by the advice of her mother and of her near relatives. Nor do all pecuniary transactions need the intervention of the guardian. Ulpian has given us the list, and we can separate the different proceedings that he enumerates, into two classes, the informal and the formal. In the first class we only find the alienations of res mancipi, either by direct or indirect covenants. Res mancipi were houses, lands, rustic servitude, slaves, beasts of burden--in a word, the soil and what was necessary to cultivate it; these were patrimonial property, and as the mainstay of the family, were placed under the vigilance and care of the guardian, so that their preservation was guaranteed. But besides this inalienable patrimony which she could not touch, the woman still had a large field of administration; she could acquire all sorts of property, dispose of the products of her fields and farm them out, dispose of her money--and thus pay her debts, recover her credit, lend, sell, bargain, and make free gifts.

For the formal proceedings, on the contrary, the law makes no distinctions and the guardian’s authority is always necessary. This will, at first sight, seem so little in harmony with the preceding that an explanation has been sought in considerations foreign to the principles of wardship. It has been said that the formal proceedings which usually took place before the magistrate, or before the witnesses who represented the Roman people, had too much resemblance to political proceedings to be permitted to others than citizens, and since woman was excluded from the comitia, she ought to be excluded from the Forum as well. But it is not true that the law courts were always closed to women, even at the time when all processes were under the form of a legis-actio; not only could she appear before the judges accompanied by her guardian, but she could even appear alone, either as a witness or as a representative of some one else--that is to say, whenever her personal interest was not at stake. She could also execute certain formal acts alone, as, for instance, emancipation, when she was under paternal authority; here again, the act could not touch her patrimony, as she had none. These are the cases in which the guardian’s authority was not necessary, although the proceeding was formal and these acts are just those which cannot touch or diminish the patrimony. Is it not, then, permissible to conclude that where the guardian can intervene in such cases, it is not on account of the formalities which surround them, it is because of the alienation they involve?

So far we have only spoken of natural guardians. But there are other kinds of guardians, and the Roman lawyers place the testamentary guardians first.

The father of the family, supreme in his own household, could, as we have already seen, dispose as he liked of the domestic patrimony; a strong reason, if he left a son and a daughter, for depriving the son of all rights of control and of the care of his sister’s hereditary portion, by taking the daughter away from his guardianship. How was this to be accomplished? By making over in his will the guardianship of his daughter to a stranger; this is testamentary guardianship. This guardianship almost amounted to independence for the woman, the testamentary guardian being a stranger to the family and having no right of succession to his ward’s property. What interest would he have in preventing her from disposing of her fortune as she pleased? To allow the father to choose a guardian for his daughter was really to allow his daughter to be free of all real and efficacious tutelage. We stop here, and will not tell how testamentary guardianship served as a model to the other kinds of wardships, how by the usurpation of these different nominal guardians the real guardianship, that of the family, was little by little restricted and undermined. We should be no longer describing this institution--we should be telling of its decay and downfall.

No legislators have better defined marriage than have those of ancient Rome. “It is the union of two lives, the blending of two inheritances, a common interest in everything religious and temporal.” In this ancient notion of marriage we find the two principles which are the foundation of Christian and modern marriage--the indissolubility of the bond and monogamy.

We found in Greece something of oriental polygamy. In Italy, on the contrary, monogamy is as ancient as the foundation of Rome. It entered so deeply into the habits of the Romans that when later they introduced into the constitution a freer form of conjugal union, concubinage, they considered it, like legitimate marriage, under the law of monogamy. And this law could not be eluded, as at Athens, by the legitimisation of natural children. The ancient Roman law always excluded the natural children from the family circle. It admitted no legitimisation nor recognition; and that illegitimacy might not be hidden under the mask of adoption, such adoption was itself subject to an investigation by the pontiffs and the ratification of the entire people.

The principle of monogamy had its natural complement in the indissolubility of marriage, for marriage with a possible divorce is, as has been said, but a progressive polygamy. Marriage in ancient Rome was indissoluble. Doubtless this indissolubility is not written in the law. Roman legislation would not, as we have seen, touch family independence, nor tighten by legal constraint ties that natural affection had formed. But if divorce is authorised by the law, it is forbidden by religion and custom; the man who repudiates his wife is branded by the censor, he is excommunicated by the priest, and can only atone for his fault by sacrificing a portion of his worldly wealth at the altar of the divinities that presided at his union. This moral sanction was much more efficacious than the laws ever were. Divorce was not illegal, but morally it was impossible; and all the writers of antiquity agree in saying that they have only heard of one during five centuries.

It is sufficient to remember these two fundamental principles, which are as old as Rome--namely, monogamy and the indissolubility of marriage--to show the value of the vulgar opinion which represents marital power in ancient Rome as the most odious of all tyrannies. It is difficult to believe that the husband was a despot and the wife a slave, where an inviolable fidelity was the reciprocal duty of the two; and a closer study will convince us that a Roman marriage was a real union in which the husband’s authority did not exclude the independence of the wife. But to be certain in what this independence consisted, two kinds of marriage must be distinguished. Sometimes the wife, though married, lived at home under the authority of her father, or the guardianship of her agnates; sometimes these ties were broken by marriage and the wife went, according to the technical expression, in manum mariti, and had no other family than her husband’s. This last kind of marriage is without doubt the more ancient. The antiquity of its origin is revealed in the particular customs that went with it, and which are found, almost identically the same, in the most ancient legislations. It is then most probable that during the first centuries of Rome, the manus mariti was the inevitable result of marriage. From the day the newly married couple had offered a joint sacrifice to the divinities in the nuptial chamber, the wife had no other family agnates or heirs than her husband and his relatives. What became of the wife’s former family ties, the rights of the agnates to her guardianship and to her inheritance? Marriage had destroyed them forever. But in this there was a danger to which the legislators had soon to give their attention. The guardians of the wife cannot have been very ready to consent to a marriage which deprived them of all their rights, and without their consent marriage was impossible. Could they have been compelled to give up their rights? But these rights were sacred to the guardians of the family interest; for them it was a duty to prevent the patrimony of their ancestors from passing into the hands of strangers. To satisfy all conflicting claims, the ancient principle had to be entirely altered. Two things had to be separated which until then had seemed inseparable--marriage and the manus, that is to say, the change of family. Side by side with the ancient marriage accompanied by the regular formalities, a new marriage was devised which was contracted simply by consent and left the wife in her family under the guardianship of her agnates. The consent of the guardians was always necessary for the ancient marriage with manus; but it was not required for the marriage pure and simple, which left the rights of the agnates intact. This revolution in the family usage was already accomplished, or nearly so, at the time of the laws of the Twelve Tables.

For the rest, the introduction of a new form of marriage did not insure the abandonment of the old, for both could in diverse cases in turn satisfy the same need. If the wife, at the time of her marriage, was not under a guardian, but under the parental authority, that is to say without patrimony, the conventio in manum could only benefit the agnates; for it was equivalent to the compact of renunciation, which, in ancient French law, so often accompanied marriage contracts. Thus, the same interest, that of preserving the patrimonial wealth, caused the introduction for the heiress of the marriage without manus, and maintained the marriage with manus for the daughter who had not already inherited.[d]

RELIGION

The religion of Rome was, as the legends show, of Sabine origin. Much of its ceremonial, the names of many of its gods, were Etruscan; and Hellenic mythology began, at an early time, to mingle itself in the simple religious faith of the Sabine countrymen. The important question in the history of all religions is, how far they exert power over the lives of their professors. That the old faith of Rome was not without such power in the times of which we speak is unquestionable. The simple Roman husbandman lived and died, like his Sabine ancestors, in the fear of the gods; he believed that there was something in the universe higher and better than himself; that by these higher powers his life and actions were watched; that to these powers good deeds and an honest life were pleasing, evil deeds and bad faith hateful. The principles thus established remained, as is confirmed by the weighty testimony of Polybius, delivered in a later and more corrupt age. “If,” says he, “you lend a single talent to a Greek, binding him by all possible securities, yet he will break faith. But Roman magistrates, accustomed to have immense sums of money pass through their hands, are restrained from fraud simply by respect for the sanctity of an oath.”[b]

The primitive religion of the Italians, in its essential or fundamental beliefs resembled that of other Indo-European nations. They adored the forces of nature, favourable or otherwise, and imagined them animated living beings, of different sexes, their rivality producing the struggles of the elements, and their union explaining the external fecundity of the world. This was also the basis of the Greek religion, but the Italian religion bore the impression of the nations who had made it. These nations were as a rule grave, sensible, prudent, and much absorbed by the miseries of this life and the dangers of the future. As they were inclined rather more towards fear than hope, they respected their gods a great deal, but feared them more, and their worship consisted more especially of humble petitions and rigorous mortifications.

Their imaginations wanted in richness and brilliance, they never therefore created anything like the rich development of the poetic legends so much admired in the Greeks. Their legends are poor and simple; springing from the hard life of agricultural labour, their character is often strangely prosaic; they are especially wanting in variety; in different times the same stories are found applied to different gods. The hero who founded or was the benefactor of the town was as a rule a child of marvellous birth, son of the god Lar, and begotten near the family hearth, sometimes by a spark from the fire. When he is young a miracle reveals his future greatness. This miracle is everywhere the same; it is a flame which burns around his head without consuming him. During his life he is wise, pious, and good; he makes good laws and teaches men to respect the gods and justice. After a few useful deeds he disappears suddenly, “he ceases to be seen,” without it being possible to say how he vanished. Doubtless he has gone to lose himself in the bosom of the great divinity from which everything emanates here below, he becomes part of this divinity, he loses his mortal name and from henceforth takes the one of the god with which he is absorbed. Thus Æneas, after his disappearance, was honoured under the name of Jupiter Indiges and Latinus as Jupiter Latinus.

Italy was thus not very rich in religious stories; the mixture of Italian races, that gave birth to Rome, was poorer still. Rome was content to accept the beliefs of the different nations which composed her by trying to unite them and making them agree; it did not seem necessary to create new ones. The only innovation which was made was inscribing on kinds of registers, called Indigitamenta, the list of gods that are affected by each event in a man’s life, from his conception until his death, and those that look after his most indispensable needs, such as food, dwelling, and clothing. They were placed in regular order, with a few explanations as to their names and the prayers which had to be offered up to them. The gods of the Indigitamenta have an exclusive and entire Roman character. Without doubt in other countries the need has been felt of placing the principal acts of life under divine protection, but as a rule gods are chosen for this purpose who are known, powerful, and tried, in order to be sure that their help will be efficacious. In Greece, the great Athene, or the wise Hermes, is invoked in order that a child may be clever and learned. In Rome, special gods were preferred, created for that purpose and for no other use; there is one who makes a child utter his first cry, and one who makes him speak his first word, neither have another use, and are only invoked for this occasion. They seldom have another name but the one their special functions give them, as if to show that they had no real existence besides the act over which they preside.

Their competency is very limited; the simplest action gives birth to several divinities. When a child is weaned there is one who teaches him how to eat, another to teach him to drink, a third makes him lie still in his little bed. When he commences to walk, four goddesses protect his first steps, two accompany him when he leaves his home, and two bring him back when he returns. The lists were thus endless and the names became indefinitely multiplied.

The fathers of the Catholic Church were much amused at “this population of little gods condemned to such small uses,” and compare them to workmen who divide the work amongst themselves in order that it may be more quickly done. For all this it is curious to study them; they are, after all, the original gods of Rome. Rome had not yet undergone the sovereign influence of Greece when the pontiffs drew up the Indigitamenta, and the remains that are left to us of the sacred registers can alone teach us what idea the Romans had of divinity and how they understood religious sentiment.

What is most striking at first is how all these gods seem without life. They have no history attached to them and not even a legend has been given them. All that is known of them is that at a certain crisis they must be prayed to and they can then render service. Once that moment passes, they are forgotten. They do not possess real names; those given to them do not distinguish them individually, but only indicate the function they fulfil. As a rule this name is in the form of an epithet; from this it is probable that it was not always employed alone, and that at first it was a simple emblem. It can be concluded with a great deal of apparent truth that originally the name described a powerful divinity, or even the divinity in general, the father all-powerful, as he was called so long as he limited his action to a special purpose. Thus the two gods Vaticanus and Fabulinas would be no other than the divinity itself, even when it watches over the first cries and first steps of the child.

The gods were not quite so numerous in the first ages, and it was then necessary to give each of them many more functions. These attributes were expressed, as in Christian litanies, by epithets, the list of which, more or less lengthy according to the importance of the god, followed after his name. As each invocation appealed to one of the faculties, and not to the power of the god, the epithet was practically much more important than the name and was employed alone. Soon the relationship between the name and the qualifications which existed primitively was forgotten or lost and then the epithets became divine. Thus the different functions of one god ended by being attached to independent gods. It was at the time of these changes that the Indigitamenta were drawn up. They are interesting to us, as they make us grasp Roman polytheism just when it is being formed, but they also show us that it is an unfinished polytheism. After creating all these gods, Rome did not know how to make them life-like. They remained vague, undecided, floating; they never attained, as the Greek gods, precise forms with distinct features. This, besides, is the general character of the Roman religion, and the gods of Rome always resembled those of the Indigitamenta.

The Italian religion was always more respectful and timid than the Greek. The Roman remained at a farther distance from his gods, he dared not approach them, he would have been afraid to look at them. If the Roman veiled his face when accomplishing religious duties, it was not, as Virgil says, because he was afraid of having his attention taken off what he was doing, but in order not to risk seeing the god he is praying to. He solicits his presence, he likes to know that he is near him, listening to his vows in order to grant them, but he would have been frightened if he had seen him. “Deliver us,” says Ovid in his prayer to Pallas, “from seeing the dryads or Diana’s bath, or Faunus when he runs across the fields in the daytime”; and until the end of paganism the Roman peasant was very afraid, when returning home in the evening, of meeting a Faun in his path. The result of this timidity of the Italians, who did not dare look at the gods in the face, is that they saw them vaguely. They have not got clear outlines, and are represented rather by symbols than by images; here Mars is adored under the form of a lance struck in the ground, in another place a simple stone represents the great Jupiter.

According to Varro, Rome remained 170 years without statues; the idea of placing them in the temples came from abroad. It was to imitate Etruria that a painted wooden Jupiter was placed in the Capitol; on the eve of festivals they gave him a coat of paint for him to appear in all his glory. These ancient customs were never quite lost, they were preserved in the country, where the peasants honoured the gods by covering old trunks of trees with bands, and in piously pouring oil on blocks of stone. At Rome, even whilst all the temples were being filled by Grecian masterpieces the antique Vesta would not allow a single statue in her sanctuary; she was only represented by the sacred flame which was never put out.

It is probable, then, that if Rome had not known Greece, anthropomorphism would have stopped short. The Roman has an instinctive repugnance to making his gods beings too much like us; to him they are not real persons, having an individual existence, but only divine manifestations, numina; and this name by which he calls them indicates perfectly the idea he has of them. Every time the divinity seems to reveal itself to the world in some manner (and as he is very religious, he believes he sees him everywhere), he notes with care this new revelation, gives it a name and worships it. These gods he creates every minute are nothing else but divine acts, and that is why they are so numerous.

No other nation has ever possessed such a vast Pantheon; and these words can be applied to the whole of Italy, that a writer of the imperial epoch lends to a woman of the Campania: “Our country is so peopled with divinities that it is much easier to meet a god than a man.” This is also the reason why the Romans more than any other nation had a taste for divinised abstractions. As in reality all their gods, even the greatest, are only divine qualities or attributes and as they always preserve to some extent their abstract character, it is not surprising that the habit was soon formed of introducing simple abstractions in their company. This is a custom as a rule only introduced into religions when they become old, but in Rome we notice it from the most ancient times. Tullus Hostilius built a temple to Fear and to Pallidness; and Salvation or Prosperity of the Roman nation was early a divinity much worshipped.

Later many exaggerations were made in this manner. During the empire all the ventures of the emperors were worshipped and statues were raised to the Security of the Century and to the Indulgence of the Master. These strange personifications, which would never have entered the mind of a Greek, were the result of the manner in which the Romans of all times conceived divinity. Polytheism was formed by them by way of an abstract analysis and not, as in Greece, by a kind of outburst of imagination and enthusiasm. They always remained faithful to this method, and to the end placed in the sky abstractions rather than living beings.

This nation, so timid, scrupulous, scared, that to protect a man one felt the need of surrounding him by gods from his birth to his death, that had such a deep respect for divinity, thinking to meet it everywhere, seemed to be the prey of every superstition.

The fathers of the Catholic Church have compared the institutions of Numa, with their minute and multiplied proscriptions, to Mosaic law. The Romans, who prided themselves on following them to the letter, could be exposed to becoming absolutely like the Jews; and one asks how it is that, amongst such a devoted people, religious authority did not end by dominating over all others. What preserved them from this fate was their great political instinct.

No other nation has ever been so taken up as have the Romans with the importance of the rights of the state, and everything was sacrificed to that--their oldest customs and their dearest prejudices. It was a general belief amongst them that dead persons became gods and protected those nearest to them, and were as close as possible to those they should save; they were buried in the house and thus became good spirits. One day, however, the law ordained, by reason of hygiene, that nobody should be buried within the precincts of the towns, and everybody obeyed this law. This example shows that in Rome nothing could resist civil power; paternal authority, in spite of the extent of its rights, gave way before it.

The father of the family is the absolute master of his children; he can sell or kill his child, but if his son is in public office the father has to obey him like the others, and when he meets him on his path he must get off his horse to let him pass.

Roman religion, so powerful, so respected as it was, had to submit to the same yoke. It was thus subject to the state, or rather was blended to it. What most aided religion to attain this result was the manner in which it recruited its priests. “Our ancestors,” says Cicero, “were never wiser nor more surprised by the gods than when they decided that the same persons would preside over religion and govern the republic. It was by this means that the magistrates and pontiffs fulfilling their duties with wisdom, agreed together to save the state.” In Rome, religious functions were not separated from political ones, and there was nothing incompatible between them.

Any one could act as pontiff in the same time as consul and for the same motives. Those who wished to become such were never required to possess any special knowledge; it was sufficient for attaining these duties to have served his country in the deliberating assemblies or the battle-field. Those that obtained them did not, whilst exercising them, take a narrow and exclusive attitude, so common to sacerdotal castes; they continued to mix with the world, they sat in the senate in the same time as in the great colleges of priests of which they formed a member; their new functions, far from taking them away from the government of their countries, gave them more right to take part in it.

These soldiers, politicians, men of business in Rome, gave to religious things that cold, practical sense which they gave to everything else. It is thanks to them that a laic undercurrent always circulated in Roman religion, that during the whole duration of the republic and of the empire no conflict ever broke out between it and the state; and that the government of Rome, in spite of all the demonstrations of piety which it lavished, never threatened to become a theocracy.[g]

TREATMENT OF OTHER NATIONS

But while morality, good faith, and self-denial prevailed among themselves, it is clear that the Romans laid no such restrictions upon their dealings with other nations. This great defect is common to Rome with all antiquity. The calmest Greek philosopher, Aristotle, regarded barbarians as naturally the slaves of the Greeks. International law was unknown, except in certain formalities observed in declaring war and making peace, and in the respect paid to the persons of ambassadors. This absence of common humanity and generosity to foreigners appears in many pages of this history, in none more strongly than in that which records the treatment of the Samnite leader C. Pontius. Gleams of better feeling appear in the war with Pyrrhus; the chivalric character of the king awakened something of a kindred spirit in the stern and rigid Romans. But nothing could be more ungenerous than the conduct of Rome to Carthage, after the Mercenary War; and still baser pieces of diplomacy occur in the subsequent dealings of the senate with the Achæans and with Carthage.

THE FINE ARTS

If Hellenic forms of thought and speech invaded the domain of literature, much more was this the case with the arts of design. There are not wanting examples to show that before this time sculpture and painting were held in honour at Rome. The consul Carvilius (in 293 B.C.) employed part of the spoils taken from the Samnites in setting up a colossal bronze statue on the Capitoline. A quadriga, executed in terra-cotta by an Etruscan artist, is ascribed to the same date. Statues were erected in the Forum to honour divers great men of olden time. Many temples were built in thanksgiving for victories, most of which were adorned by Etruscan or Greek artists. The temple of Salus was ornamented about 305 B.C. by paintings from the hand of that C. Fabius who adopted the name of Pictor and transmitted it as an honour to his family. The Ogulnii, in their ædileship (296 B.C.), set up in the Capitol a bronze group representing the wolf suckling the twins. A painting of the battle in which the Romans defeated Hiero in 263 adorned the walls of the senate house.

Of these works, and others not recorded by history, no trace remains except the famous wolf now preserved in the Capitoline Museum. The twins are a later addition, but the animal is probably the original work noticed by Cicero and Livy. It bears the well-known marks of the archaic Greek art in the sharp, rigid forms of the limbs and muscles, the peculiar expression of the face, and the regular knots of hair about the neck and head. Here, then, we trace Hellenic artists at Rome. Others of the works mentioned are expressly assigned to Etruscan artists; and it may be remarked that Fabius, the only native artist of whom we hear, belonged to a family always associated in history with Etruscans.

But when Rome had conquered southern Italy, she was brought at once in contact with works of the finest Greek art. No coins of old Greece are so beautiful as those of her colonial settlements in the west; and it is in the coins of Rome, strange to remark, that we first trace the indisputable effect of Greek art.

Up to the time when Italy was conquered, the Romans had used only copper money of a most clumsy and inconvenient kind. A pound of this metal by weight was stamped with the rude effigy of a ship’s prow, and this was the original as or libra. Gradually the as was reduced in weight till, in the necessities of the Second Punic War, it became only one-sixth of the libra by weight; yet it retained its ancient name, just as the pound sterling of silver, originally equivalent to a pound Troy-weight, is now not more than one-third, or as the French livre is a much smaller fraction of that weight.[72] But even this diminished coin was clumsy for use, as trade increased with increasing empire. After the conquest of southern Italy the precious metals became more plentiful, and the coinage of the conquered cities supplied beautiful models. The first denarius, or silver piece of ten asses, was struck in the year 269 B.C., and is evidently imitated from the coins of Magna Græcia. The Roman generals who commanded in these districts stamped money for the use of their armies with the old insignia of the conquered cities. The workmanship is, indeed, inferior to the best specimens of Hellenic coins, but far superior to anything Roman, before or after. Gold coins of similar model were not struck till near the close of the Hannibalic War (205 B.C.). The great mass of Roman coins which we possess belongs to the last century of the republic. They usually bear the family emblems of the person who presided over the mint, or of the consuls for whose use they were struck; but the execution always remained rude and unattractive.

Afterwards, Roman conquest gave the means of supplying works of art by the easier mode of appropriation. In the conquest of Etruria, years before, the practice had been begun; from Volsinii alone we read that two thousand statues were brought to Rome. In following years Agrigentum, Syracuse, Corinth, and other famous cities, sent the finest works of Hellenic art to decorate the public buildings and public places of the barbarous city of the Tiber, or in many cases to ornament the villas of the rapacious generals.

In the more intellectual even of the useful arts the Romans made no great progress. The contrivances of Archimedes for the defence of Syracuse struck them with amazement. In Cicero’s time they usually carried the sciences of quantity and magnitude no further than was necessary for practical arithmetic and mensuration. In 293 B.C. L. Papirius Cursor the younger set up a sun-dial at Rome, and thirty years later another was brought from Sicily by the consul M. Valerius Messalla; but no one knew how to place them, so as to make the shadow of the gnomon an index of time. A water-clock, resembling our sand-glass, was not introduced till 159 B.C.

Nor were the common conveniences of life in an advanced state. Up to the year 264 the houses were commonly roofed with shingles of wood, like the Alpine cottages of our days; then first earthen tiles began to supersede this rude material. Agriculture must have been roughly carried on by men who were as much soldiers as countrymen. The wine of Latium was so bad that Cineas, when he tasted it, said--and the witticism was remembered--“he did not wonder that the mother of such wine was hung so high”; alluding to the Italian custom, still retained, of training the vine up elms and poplars, while in Greece it was trained (as in France and Germany) on short poles and exposed to all the heat of the sun.

A form of architecture called the Tuscan was mostly used, which bore an imperfect resemblance to that early Greek style usually called the Doric. But the existing remains of the republican period are too scanty to allow of any precise statements. The true arts of Rome were, then and always, the arts of the builder and engineer. It would not be wrong to call the Romans the greatest builders in the world. Some of their mighty works, works combining solidity of structure with beauty of form and utility of purpose, still remain for our admiration, having survived the decay of ages and the more destructive hands of barbarian conquerors. In every country subject to their sway, roads and bridges and aqueducts remain in sufficient number and perfection to justify all praise. We class the roads among the buildings, according to their own phraseology,[73] and their construction deserves the name as justly as the works upon our own railways. The first great military road and the first aqueduct are due to the old censor Appius Cæcus, and they both remain to preserve the memory of the man, often self-willed and presumptuous, but resolute, firm of purpose, noble in conception, and audacious in execution. Other aqueducts and other roads rapidly followed; the spade and trowel were as much the instruments of Roman dominion as the sword and spear. By the close of the Punic Wars solid roads, carried by the engineer’s art over broad and rapid streams, through difficult mountain passes, across quaking morasses, had already linked Rome with Capua in the south, with Placentia and Cremona in the north. Such were the proud monuments of the Appii, the Æmilii, the Flaminii.

It may be said that these magnificent works, as well as the vast amphitheatres and baths which afterwards decorated Rome and every petty city in her provinces, were due to the invention of the arch. This simple piece of mechanism, so wonderful in its results, first appears in the Great Cloaca. It was unknown to the Greeks, or at least not used by them. It may be that the Romans borrowed it from the Etruscans; the Cloaca is attributed to an Etruscan king, and similar works are discovered in ruined cities of Etruria. But if they borrowed the principle they used it nobly, as witness the noble bridges still remaining, the copious streams carried over the plain for miles at the height of sixty or seventy feet from the level of the soil. If they had little feeling for beauty and delicacy in the use of the pencil or the chisel, their buildings are stamped with a greatness which exalted the power of the state while it disregarded the pleasure of the individual.

Their attention to practical utility in draining and watering their city is especially noted by Strabo in contrast with the indifference shown by the Greeks to these matters. To the facts already stated may be added their rule, established so early as the year 260 B.C., that no one should be buried within the city--a rule scarcely yet adopted in London. From this time dates the beginning of those rows of sepulchral monuments which the traveller beheld on either side of the road as he entered the Eternal City. It was a gloomy custom, but better at least than leaving graveyards in the heart of crowded cities.

A striking proof of engineering skill is shown in the tunnels cut through solid rock for the purpose of draining off volcanic lakes; this art we may also believe to have been originally borrowed from the Etruscans. The first tunnel of which we hear was that by which the Alban Lake was partially let off during the siege of Veii, a work which was suggested by an Etruscan soothsayer. Other works of like kind still remain, though the time of their execution is not always known. Here shall be added the notice of one work of kindred sort, which happens by a rare coincidence to combine great utility with rarest beauty. The famous M. Curius Dentatus, when censor in 272, cut a passage through the rock, by which the waters of Lake Velinus were precipitated into the Nar. By this means he recovered for his newly conquered Sabine clients a large portion of fertile land, and left behind the most lovely, if not the most sublime, of all waterfalls. The Falls of Terni, such is the famous name they now bear, were wrought by the hand of man. “Thousands of travellers visit them,” says Niebuhr; “how few know that they are not the work of Nature!”[b]

LITERATURE

Rome during this period began to form the literature which has come down to us; but unfortunately, instead of being national and original, it was imitative and borrowed, consisting chiefly of translations from the Greek. In the year after the end of the First Punic War (240), L. Livius Andronicus, an Italian Greek by birth, represented his first play at Rome. His pieces were taken from the Greek; and he also translated the Odyssey out of that language into Latin. Cn. Nævius, a native of Campania, also made plays from the Greek, and he wrote an original poem on the First Punic War, in which he had himself borne arms. These poets used the Latin measures in their verse; but Q. Ennius, from Rudiæ in Calabria, who is usually called the father of Roman poetry, was the first who introduced the Greek metres into the Latin language. His works were numerous tragedies and comedies from the Greek, satires, and his celebrated Annals, or poetic history of Rome, in hexameters, the loss of which (at least of the early books) is much to be lamented. Maccius Plautus, an Umbrian, and Cæcilius Statius, an Insubrian Gaul, composed numerous comedies, freely imitated from the Greek. M. Pacuvius of Brundusium, the nephew of Ennius, made tragedies from the Greek; L. Afranius was regarded as the Menander of Rome; and P. Terentius (Terence), a Carthaginian by birth, gave some beautiful translations (as we may perhaps best term his pieces) of the comedies of Menander and Apollodorus. None of these poets but Plautus and Terence has reached us, except in fragments; the former amuses us with his humour, and gives us occasional views of Roman manners, while we are charmed with the graceful elegance of the latter. It is remarkable that not one of these poets was a Roman. In fact Rome has never produced a poet.

Q. Fabius Pictor, L. Cincius Alimentus, A. Postumius Albinus, M. Porcius Cato, and L. Cassius Hemina wrote histories (the first three in Greek) in a brief, dry, unattractive style. Cincius also wrote on constitutional antiquities, and seems to have been a man of research; and a work of Cato’s on husbandry has come down to us which we could well spare for his Origines, or early history of Italy.[e]

FOOTNOTES

[64] [Both consular places were opened to the plebeians by the law of the tribune Genucius, passed in 342 B.C.; cf. Mommsen[h] and Greenidge.[i]]

[65] [The reduction of the comitia curiata to a mere form belongs to the fifth century B.C.]

[66] [The senators were chiefly men who had held the principal civic offices; and as these offices were monopolised by a narrow circle of wealthy families, the senatorial places must have been practically, though not constitutionally, hereditary.]

[67] [By the Publilian law of 339 B.C. (cf. p. 185) the senatorial control over the centuries was reduced to a formality. But the senate still controlled the magistrates, and the magistrates controlled the assemblies.]

[68] [In fact the tribal assembly came into existence before the comitia centuriata began to grow more popular--the tribal assembly influenced the development of the centuriate assembly in a democratic direction.]

[69] [According to some authorities, however, the comitia centuriata did not come into existence before the end of the regal period.]

[70] [Rarely were laws passed by the tribal assembly under the presidency of a consul.]

[71] [After the passing of the Hortensian Law, 287 B.C., the tribunes were no longer constitutionally bound to gain the consent of the senate to their bills; and occasionally a tribune, as Flaminius in 232 and Claudius in 218, availed himself of his constitutional freedom. Generally, however, the tribunes were ministers of the senate, and more subservient than the consuls.]

[72] When the pound of weight ceased to be the same with the pound of currency, the former was usually designated æs grave.

[73] Munire viam, was their phrase.

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