No More Learning

PUNIC WARS AND WARS OF MACEDONIA AND ASIA (488-621).

I. COMPARISON BETWEEN ROME AND CARTHAGE 155

II. FIRST PUNIC WAR (490-513) 158

III. WAR OF ILLYRIA (525) 165

IV. INVASION OF THE CISALPINES (528) 167

V. SECOND PUNIC WAR (536-552) 169

VI. RESULTS OF THE SECOND PUNIC WAR 182

VII. THE MACEDONIAN WAR (554) 189

VIII. WAR AGAINST ANTIOCHUS (563) 194

IX. THE WAR IN THE CISALPINE (558-579) 196

X. WAR AGAINST PERSIA (583) 199

XI. MODIFICATION OF ROMAN POLICY 204

XII. THIRD PUNIC WAR (605-608) 212

XIII. GREECE, MACEDONIA, NUMANTIA, AND PERGAMUS REDUCED TO PROVINCES 215

XIV. SUMMARY 219


CHAPTER VI.

THE GRACCHI, MARIUS, AND SYLLA (621-676).

I. STATE OF THE REPUBLIC 224

II. TIBERIUS GRACCHUS (621) 232

III. CAIUS GRACCHUS (631) 238

IV. WAR OF JUGURTHA (637) 246

V. MARIUS (647) 249

VI. WARS OF THE ALLIES 256

VII. SYLLA (666) 262

VIII. EFFECTS OF SYLLA’S DICTATORSHIP 278

* * * * *

BOOK II.

HISTORY OF JULIUS CÆSAR.


CHAPTER I.

(654-684. )

I. FIRST YEARS OF CÆSAR 281

II. CÆSAR PERSECUTED BY SYLLA (672) 290

III. CÆSAR IN ASIA (673, 674) 293

IV. CÆSAR ON HIS RETURN TO ROME (676) 296

V. CÆSAR GOES TO RHODES (678-680) 299

VI. CÆSAR PONTIFF AND MILITARY TRIBUNE (680-684) 302


CHAPTER II.

(684-691. )

I. STATE OF THE REPUBLIC (684) 307

II. CONSULSHIP OF POMPEY AND CRASSUS 316

III. CÆSAR QUESTOR (686) 323

IV. THE GABINIAN LAW (687) 327

V. THE MANILIAN LAW (688) 330

VI. CÆSAR CURULE ÆDILE (689) 334

VII. CÆSAR _Judex Quæstionis_ (660) 339

VIII. CONSPIRACIES AGAINST THE SENATE (690) 340

IX. THE DIFFICULTY OF CONSTITUTING A NEW PARTY 342


CHAPTER III.

(691-695. )

I. CICERO AND ANTONIUS CONSULS (691) 345

II. AGRARIAN LAW OF RULLUS 347

III. TRIAL OF RABIRIUS (691) 352

IV. CÆSAR GRAND PONTIFF (691) 354

V. CATILINE’S CONSPIRACY 357

VI. ERROR OF CICERO 379

VII. CÆSAR PRÆTOR (692) 381

VIII. ATTEMPT OF CLODIUS (692) 386

IX. POMPEY’S TRIUMPHAL RETURN (692) 388

X. DESTINY REGULATES EVENTS 397


CHAPTER IV.

(693-695. )

I. CÆSAR PROPRÆTOR IN SPAIN (693) 402

II. CÆSAR DEMANDS A TRIUMPH AND THE CONSULSHIP (694) 409

III. ALLIANCE OF CÆSAR, POMPEY, AND CRASSUS 413

IV. CÆSAR’S ELECTION 418


CHAPTER V.

CONSULSHIP OF CÆSAR AND BIBULUS (695).

I. ATTEMPTS AT CONCILIATION 421

II. AGRARIAN LAWS 424

III. CÆSAR’S VARIOUS LAWS 432

IV. CÆSAR RECEIVES THE GOVERNMENT OF THE GAULS 445

V. OPPOSITION OF THE PATRICIANS 448

VI. LAW OF CLODIUS--EXILE OF CICERO 456

VII. THE EXPLANATION OF CÆSAR’S CONDUCT 460




PREFACE.


Historic truth ought to be no less sacred than religion. If the precepts
of faith raise our soul above the interests of this world, the lessons
of history, in their turn, inspire us with the love of the beautiful and
the just, and the hatred of whatever presents an obstacle to the
progress of humanity. These lessons, to be profitable, require certain
conditions. It is necessary that the facts be produced with a rigorous
exactness, that the changes political or social be analysed
philosophically, that the exciting interest of the details of the lives
of public men should not divert attention from the political part they
played, or cause us to forget their providential mission.

Too often the writer represents the different phases of history as
spontaneous events, without seeking in preceding facts their true origin
and their natural deduction; like the painter who, in re-producing the
characteristics of Nature, only seizes their picturesque effect, without
being able, in his picture, to give their scientific demonstration. The
historian ought to be more than a painter; he ought, like the
geologist, who explains the phenomena of the globe, to unfold the
secret of the transformation of societies.

But, in writing history, by what means are we to arrive at truth? By
following the rules of logic. Let us first take for granted that a great
effect is always due to a great cause, never to a small one; in other
words, an accident, insignificant in appearance, never leads to
important results without a pre-existing cause, which has permitted this
slight accident to produce a great effect. The spark only lights up a
vast conflagration when it falls upon combustible matters previously
collected. Montesquieu thus confirms this idea: “It is not fortune,” he
says, “which rules the world. . . . There are general causes, whether moral
or physical, which act in every monarchy, raising, maintaining, or
overthrowing it; all accidents are subject to these causes, and if the
fortune of a battle--that is to say, a particular cause--has ruined a
state, there was a general cause which made it necessary that that state
should perish through a single battle: in a word, the principal cause
drags with it all the particular accidents. ”[1]

If during nearly a thousand years the Romans always came triumphant out
of the severest trials and greatest perils, it is because there existed
a general cause which made them always superior to their enemies, and
which did not permit partial defeats and misfortunes to entail the fall
of the empire. If the Romans, after giving an example to the world of a
people constituting itself and growing great by liberty, seemed, after
Cæsar, to throw themselves blindly into slavery, it is because there
existed a general reason which by fatality prevented the Republic from
returning to the purity of its ancient institutions; it is because the
new wants and interests of a society in labour required other means to
satisfy them. Just as logic demonstrates that the reason of important
events is imperious, in like manner we must recognise in the long
duration of an institution the proof of its goodness, and in the
incontestable influence of a man upon his age the proof of his genius.

The task, then, consists in seeking the vital element which constituted
the strength of the institution, as the predominant idea which caused
man to act. In following this rule, we shall avoid the errors of those
historians who gather facts transmitted by preceding ages, without
properly arranging them according to their philosophical importance;
thus glorifying that which merits blame, and leaving in the shade that
which calls for the light. It is not a minute analysis of the Roman
organisation which will enable us to understand the duration of so great
an empire, but the profound examination of the spirit of its
institutions; no more is it the detailed recital of the most trivial
actions of a superior man which will reveal the secret of his
ascendency, but the attentive investigation of the elevated motives of
his conduct.

When extraordinary facts attest an eminent genius, what is more contrary
to good sense than to ascribe to him all the passions and sentiments of
mediocrity? What more erroneous than not to recognise the pre-eminence
of those privileged beings who appear in history from time to time like
luminous beacons, dissipating the darkness of their epoch, and throwing
light into the future? To deny this pre-eminence would, indeed, be to
insult humanity, by believing it capable of submitting, long and
voluntarily, to a domination which did not rest on true greatness and
incontestable utility. Let us be logical, and we shall be just.

Too many historians find it easier to lower men of genius, than, with a
generous inspiration, to raise them to their due height, by penetrating
their vast designs. Thus, as regards Cæsar, instead of showing us Rome,
torn to pieces by civil wars and corrupted by riches, trampling under
foot her ancient institutions, threatened by powerful peoples, such as
Gauls, Germans, and Parthians, incapable of sustaining herself without a
central power stronger, more stable, and more just; instead, I say, of
tracing this faithful picture, Cæsar is represented, from an early age,
as already aspiring to the supreme power. If he opposes Sylla, if he
disagrees with Cicero, if he allies himself with Pompey, it is the
result of that far-sighted astuteness which divined everything with a
view to bring everything under subjection. If he throws himself into
Gaul, it is to acquire riches by pillage[2] or soldiers devoted to his
projects; if he crosses the sea to carry the Roman eagles into an
unknown country, but the conquest of which will strengthen that of
Gaul,[3] it is to seek there pearls which were believed to exist in the
seas of Great Britain. [4] If, after having vanquished the formidable
enemies of Italy on the other side of the Alps, he meditates an
expedition against the Parthians, to avenge the defeat of Crassus, it
is, as certain historians say, because activity was a part of his
nature, and that his health was better when he was campaigning. [5] If he
accepts from the Senate with thankfulness a crown of laurel, and wears
it with pride, it is to conceal his bald head. If, lastly, he is
assassinated by those whom he had loaded with benefits, it is because he
sought to make himself king; as though he were to his contemporaries, as
well as for posterity, the greatest of all kings. Since Suetonius and
Plutarch, such are the paltry interpretations which it has pleased
people to give to the noblest actions. But by what sign are we to
recognise a man’s greatness? By the empire of his ideas, when his
principles and his system triumph in spite of his death or defeat. Is it
not, in fact, the peculiarity of genius to survive destruction, and to
extend its empire over future generations? Cæsar disappeared, and his
influence predominates still more than during his life. Cicero, his
adversary, is compelled to exclaim: “All the acts of Cæsar, his
writings, his words, his promises, his thoughts, have more force since
his death, than if he were still alive. ”[6] For ages it was enough to
tell the world that such was the will of Cæsar, for the world to obey
it.

The preceding remarks sufficiently explain the aim I have in view in
writing this history. This aim is to prove that, when Providence raises
up such men as Cæsar, Charlemagne, and Napoleon, it is to trace out to
peoples the path they ought to follow; to stamp with the seal of their
genius a new era; and to accomplish in a few years the labour of many
centuries. Happy the peoples who comprehend and follow them! woe to
those who misunderstand and combat them! They do as the Jews did, they
crucify their Messiah; they are blind and culpable: blind, for they do
not see the impotence of their efforts to suspend the definitive triumph
of good; culpable, for they only retard progress, by impeding its
prompt and fruitful application.

In fact, neither the murder of Cæsar, nor the captivity of St. Helena,
have been able to destroy irrevocably two popular causes overthrown by a
league which disguised itself under the mask of liberty. Brutus, by
slaying Cæsar, plunged Rome into the horrors of civil war; he did not
prevent the reign of Augustus, but he rendered possible those of Nero
and Caligula. The ostracism of Napoleon by confederated Europe has been
no more successful in preventing the Empire from being resuscitated;
and, nevertheless, how far are we from the great questions solved, the
passions calmed, and the legitimate satisfactions given to peoples by
the first Empire!

Thus every day since 1815 has verified the prophecy of the captive of
St. Helena:

“How many struggles, how much blood, how many years will it not require
to realise the good which I intended to do for mankind! ”[7]

_Palace of the Tuileries, March 20th, 1862. _

NAPOLEON.

[Illustration: MAP OF THE ROMAN TERRITORY AND OF THE STATES SUBMITTED TO
ITS DOMINION OR IN ALLIANCE WITH IT AT THE TIME OF THE EXPULSION OF
TARQUINUS SUPERBUS 510 years before Christ the year 244 from the
foundation of Rome drawn by M^R. PIETRO ROSA. ]




JULIUS CÆSAR.




BOOK I.

ROMAN HISTORY BEFORE CÆSAR.




CHAPTER I.

ROME UNDER THE KINGS.


[Sidenote: The Kings found the Roman Institutions. ]

I. “In the birth of societies,” says Montesquieu, “it is the chiefs of
the republics who form the institution, and in the sequel it is the
institution which forms the chiefs of the republics. ” And he adds, “One
of the causes of the prosperity of Rome was the fact that its kings were
all great men. We find nowhere else in history an uninterrupted series
of such statesmen and such military commanders. ”[8]

The story, more or less fabulous, of the foundation of Rome does not
come within the limits of our design; and with no intention of clearing
up whatever degree of fiction these earliest ages of history may
contain, we purpose only to remind our readers that the kings laid the
foundations of those institutions to which Rome owed her greatness, and
so many extraordinary men who astonished the world by their virtues and
exploits.

The kingly power lasted a hundred and forty-four years, and at its fall
Rome had become the most powerful state in Latium. The town was of vast
extent, for, even at that epoch, the seven hills were nearly all
inclosed within a wall protected internally and externally by a
consecrated space called the _Pomœrium_. [9]

This line of inclosure remained long the same, although the increase of
the population had led to the establishment of immense suburbs, which
finally inclosed the Pomœrium itself. [10]

The Roman territory properly so called was circumscribed, but that of
the subjects and allies of Rome was already rather considerable. Some
colonies had been founded. The kings, by a skilful policy, had succeeded
in drawing into their dependence a great number of neighbouring states,
and, when Tarquinius Superbus assembled the Hernici, the Latins, and the
Volsci, for a ceremony destined to seal his alliance with them,
forty-seven different petty states took part in the inauguration of the
temple of Jupiter Latialis. [11]

The foundation of Ostia, by Ancus Martius, at the mouth of the Tiber,
shows that already the political and commercial importance of
facilitating communication with the sea was understood; while the treaty
of commerce concluded with Carthage at the time of the fall of the
kingly power, the details of which are preserved by Polybius, indicates
more extensive foreign relations than we might have supposed. [12]


[Sidenote: Social Organisation. ]

II. The Roman social body, which originated probably in ancient
transformations of society, consisted, from the earliest ages, of a
certain number of aggregations, called _gentes_, formed of the families
of the conquerors, and bearing some resemblance to the clans of Scotland
or to the Arabian tribes. The heads of families (_patresfamilias_) and
their members (_patricii_) were united among themselves, not only by
kindred, but also by political and religious ties. Hence arose an
hereditary nobility having for distinctive marks family names, special
costume,[13] and waxen images of their ancestors (_jus imaginum_).

The plebeians, perhaps a race who had been conquered at an earlier
period, were, in regard to the dominant race, in a situation similar to
that of the Anglo-Saxons in regard to the Normans in the eleventh
century of our era, after the invasion of England. They were generally
agriculturists, excluded originally from all military and civil
office. [14]

The patrician families had gathered round them, under the name of
_clients_, either foreigners, or a great portion of the plebeians.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus even pretends that Romulus had required that
each of these last should choose himself a patron. [15] The clients
cultivated the fields and formed part of the family. [16] The relation of
patronage had created such reciprocal obligations as amounted almost to
the ties of kindred. For the patrons, they consisted in giving
assistance to their clients in affairs public and private; and for the
latter, in aiding constantly the patrons with their person and purse,
and in preserving towards them an inviolable fidelity: they could not
cite each other reciprocally in law, or bear witness one against the
other, and it would have been a scandal to see them take different sides
in a political question. It was a state of things which had some
analogy to feudalism; the great protected the little, and the little
paid for protection by rents and services; yet there was this essential
difference, that the clients were not serfs, but free men.

Slavery had long formed one of the constituent parts of society. The
slaves, taken among foreigners and captives,[17] and associated in all
the domestic labours of the family, often received their liberty as a
recompense for their conduct. They were then named _freedmen_, and were
received among the clients of the patron, without sharing in all the
rights of a citizen. [18]

The _gens_ thus consisted of the reunion of patrician families having a
common ancestor; around it was grouped a great number of clients,
freedmen, and slaves. To give an idea of the importance of the _gentes_
in the first ages of Rome, it is only necessary to remind the reader
that towards the year 251, a certain Attus Clausus, afterwards called
Appius Claudius, a Sabine of the town of Regillum, distinguished,
according to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, no less for the splendour of
his birth than for his great wealth, took refuge among the Romans with
his kinsmen, his friends, and his clients, with all their families, to
the number of five thousand men capable of bearing arms. [19] When, in
275, the three hundred Fabii, forming the _gens Fabia_, offered alone
to fight the Veians, they were followed by four thousand clients. [20]
The high class often reckoned, by means of its numerous adherents, on
carrying measures by itself. In 286, the plebeians having refused to
take part in the consular comitia, the patricians, followed by their
clients, elected the consuls;[21] and in 296, a Claudius declared with
pride that the nobility had no need of the plebeians to carry on war
against the Volsci. [22] The families of ancient origin long formed the
state by themselves. To them exclusively the name of _populus_
applied,[23] as that of _plebs_ was given to the plebeians. [24] Indeed,
although in the sequel the word _populus_ took a more extensive
signification, Cicero says that it is to be understood as applying, not
to the universality of the inhabitants, but to a reunion of men
associated by a community of rights and interests. [25]


[Sidenote: Political Organisation. ]

III. In a country where war was the principal occupation, the political
organisation must naturally depend on the military organisation. A
single chief had the superior direction, an assembly of men pre-eminent
in importance and age formed the council, while the political rights
belonged only to those who supported the fatigues of war.

The king, elected generally by the assembly of the _gentes_,[26]
commanded the army. Sovereign pontiff, legislator, and judge in all
sacred matters, he dispensed justice[27] in all criminal affairs which
concerned the Republic. He had for insignia a crown of gold and a purple
robe, and for escort twenty-four lictors,[28] some carrying axes
surrounded with rods, others merely rods. [29] At the death of the king,
a magistrate, called _interrex_, was appointed by the Senate to exercise
the royal authority during the five days which intervened before the
nomination of his successor. This office continued, with the same title,
under the Consular Republic, when the absence of the consuls prevented
the holding of the comitia.

The Senate, composed of the richest and most illustrious of the
patricians, to the number at first of a hundred, of two hundred after
the union with the Sabines, and of three hundred after the admission of
the _gentes minores_ under Tarquin, was the council of the ancients,
taking under its jurisdiction the interests of the town, in which were
then concentrated all the interests of the State.

The patricians occupied all offices, supported alone the burden of war,
and consequently had alone the right of voting in the assemblies.

The _gentes_ were themselves divided into three tribes. Each, commanded
by a tribune,[30] was obliged, under Romulus, to furnish a thousand
soldiers (indeed, _miles_ comes from _mille_) and a hundred horsemen
(_celeres_). The tribe was divided into ten curiæ; at the head of each
curia was a curion. The three tribes, furnishing three thousand foot
soldiers and three hundred horsemen, formed at first the legion. Their
number was soon doubled by the adjunction of new cities. [31]

The curia, into which a certain number of _gentes_ entered, was then the
basis of the political and military organisation, and hence originated
the name of _Quirites_ to signify the Roman people.

The members of the curia were constituted into religious associations,
having each its assemblies and solemn festivals which established bonds
of affiliation between them. When their assemblies had a political aim,
the votes were taken by head;[32] they decided the question of peace or
war; they nominated the magistrates of the town; and they confirmed or
abrogated the laws. [33]

The appeal to the people,[34] which might annul the judgments of the
magistrates, was nothing more than the appeal to the curia; and it was
by having recourse to it, after having been condemned by the decemvirs,
that the survivor of the three Horatii was saved.

The policy of the kings consisted in blending together the different
races and breaking down the barriers which separated the different
classes. To effect the first of these objects, they divided the lower
class of the people into corporations,[35] and augmented the number of
the tribes and changed their constitution;[36] but to effect the second,
they introduced, to the great discontent of the higher class, plebeians
among the patricians,[37] and raised the freedmen to the rank of
citizens. [38] In this manner, each curia became considerably increased
in numbers; but, as the votes were taken by head, the poor patricians
were numerically stronger than the rich.

Servius Tullius, though he preserved the curiæ, deprived them of their
military organisation, that is, he no longer made it the basis of his
system of recruiting. He instituted the centuries, with the double aim
of giving as a principle the right of suffrage to all the citizens, and
of creating an army which was more national, inasmuch as he introduced
the plebeians into it; his design was indeed to throw on the richest
citizens the burden of war,[39] which was just, each equipping and
maintaining himself at his own cost. The citizens were no longer
classified by castes, but according to their fortunes. Patricians and
plebeians were placed in the same rank if their income was equal. The
influence of the rich predominated, without doubt, but only in
proportion to the sacrifices required of them.

Servius Tullius ordered a general report of the population to be made,
in which every one was obliged to declare his age, his fortune, the name
of his tribe and that of his father, and the number of his children and
of his slaves. This operation was called _census_.
[40] The report was
inscribed on tables,[41] and, once terminated, all the citizens were
called together in arms in the Campus Martius. This review was called
the _closing of the lustrum_, because it was accompanied with sacrifices
and purifications named _lustrations_. The term _lustrum_ was applied to
the interval of five years between two censuses. [42]

The citizens were divided into six classes,[43] and into a hundred and
ninety-three centuries, according to the fortune of each, beginning with
the richest and ending with the poorest. The first class comprised
ninety-eight centuries, eighteen of which were knights; the second and
fourth, twenty-two; the third, twenty; the fifth, thirty; and the sixth,
although the most numerous, forming only one. [44] The first class
contained a smaller number of citizens, yet, having a greater number of
centuries, it was obliged to pay more than half the tax, and furnish
more legionaries than any other class.

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

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

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

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

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


[Sidenote: Religion. ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


[Sidenote: Results obtained by Royalty. ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




CHAPTER II

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CONSULAR REPUBLIC.

(From 244 to 416. )


[Sidenote: Advantage of the Republic. ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


[Sidenote: Institutions of the Republic. ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


[Sidenote: Transformation of the Aristocracy. ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


[Sidenote: Elements of Dissolution. ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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