Home
  By Author [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Title [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Language
all Classics books content using ISYS

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon


We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month
fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: History of Julius Caesar Vol. 1 of 2
Author: Napoleon III, Emperor of the French
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
Copyright Status: Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook. See comments about copyright issues at end of book.

*** Start of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "History of Julius Caesar Vol. 1 of 2" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.



(This file was made using scans of public domain works
from the University of Michigan Digital Libraries.)



                       HISTORY OF JULIUS CÆSAR.

                                VOL. I.

The Publishers hereby announce that all rights of translation and
reproduction abroad are reserved.

This volume was entered at the office of the Minister of the Interior
(_déposé au Ministère de l’Intérieur_) in March, 1865.

The only Editions and Translations sanctioned by the Author are the
following:

_French._--HENRI PLON, Printer and Publisher of the “_History of Julius
Cæsar_,” 8 Rue Garancière, Paris.

_English._--CASSELL, PETTER, and GALPIN, Publishers, La Belle Sauvage
Yard, Ludgate Hill, London, E.C.

_American._--HARPER and BROTHERS, Franklin Square, New York. (Authorized
by the English Publishers.)

_German._--CHARLES GEROLD, FILS, Printers and Publishers, Vienna.

_Italian._--LEMONNIER, Printer and Publisher, Florence.

_Portuguese._--V. AILLAUD, GUILLARD, and Co., Paris, Publishers, and
Agents for Portugal and Brazil.

_Russian._--B. M. WOLFF, Bookseller and Publisher, St. Petersburg.

_Danish_, _Norwegian_, _Swedish._--CARL B. LORCK, Consul General for
Denmark, Bookseller and Publisher, Leipsic.

_Hungarian._--MAURICE RATH, Bookseller and Publisher, Pesth.

[Illustration: CAIVS JVLIVS CÆSAR

New York: Harper & Brothers.]



                       HISTORY OF JULIUS CÆSAR.

                                VOL. I.

                               NEW YORK:

                    HARPER & BROTHERS, PUBLISHERS,

                           FRANKLIN SQUARE.

                                 1866.



                               CONTENTS.


                                BOOK I.

ROMAN HISTORY BEFORE CÆSAR.


CHAPTER I.

ROME UNDER THE KINGS.

                                                                    PAGE

  I. THE KINGS FOUND THE ROMAN INSTITUTIONS                            1

 II. SOCIAL ORGANISATION                                               3

III. POLITICAL ORGANISATION                                            6

 IV. RELIGION                                                         15

  V. RESULTS OBTAINED BY ROYALTY                                      20


CHAPTER II.

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CONSULAR REPUBLIC (244-416).

  I. ADVANTAGE OF THE REPUBLIC                                        25

 II. INSTITUTIONS OF THE REPUBLIC                                     31

III. TRANSFORMATION OF THE ARISTOCRACY                                36

 IV. ELEMENTS OF DISSOLUTION                                          42

  V. RÉSUMÉ                                                           53


CHAPTER III.

CONQUEST OF ITALY (416-488).

    I. DESCRIPTION OF ITALY                                           62

   II. DISPOSITIONS OF THE PEOPLE OF ITALY IN REGARD TO ROME          65

  III. TREATMENT OF THE VANQUISHED PEOPLES                            68

   IV. SUBMISSION OF LATIUM AFTER THE FIRST SAMNITE WAR               75

    V. SECOND SAMNITE WAR                                             78

   VI. THIRD SAMNITE WAR--COALITION OF SAMNITES, ETRUSCANS, UMBRIANS,
AND HERNICI (443-449)                                                 82

  VII. FOURTH SAMNITE WAR--SECOND COALITION OF THE SAMNITES,
ETRUSCANS, UMBRIANS, AND GAULS (456-464)                              85

 VIII. THIRD COALITION OF THE ETRUSCANS, GAULS, LUCANIANS, AND
TARENTUM (469-474)                                                    88

   IX. PYRRHUS IN ITALY--SUBMISSION OF TARENTUM (474-488)             89

    X. PREPONDERANCE OF ROME                                          92

   XI. STRENGTH OF THE INSTITUTIONS                                   97


CHAPTER IV.

PROSPERITY OF THE BASIN OF THE MEDITERRANEAN BEFORE THE PUNIC WARS.

    I. COMMERCE OF THE MEDITERRANEAN                                 104

   II. NORTHERN AFRICA                                               105

  III. SPAIN                                                         110

   IV. SOUTHERN GAUL                                                 114

    V. LIGURIA, CISALPINE GAUL, VENETIA, AND ILLYRIA                 115

   VI. EPIRUS                                                        118

  VII. GREECE                                                        119

 VIII. MACEDONIA                                                     124

   IX. ASIA MINOR                                                    126

    X. KINGDOM OF PONTUS                                             127

   XI. BITHYNIA                                                      130

  XII. CAPPADOCIA                                                    131

 XIII. KINGDOM OF PERGAMUS                                           132

  XIV. CARIA, LYCIA, AND CILICIA                                     135

   XV. SYRIA                                                         137

  XVI. EGYPT                                                         143

 XVII. CYRENAICA                                                     146

XVIII. CYPRUS                                                        147

  XIX. CRETE                                                         148

   XX. RHODES                                                        148

  XXI. SARDINIA                                                      151

 XXII. CORSICA                                                       152

XXIII. SICILY                                                        152


CHAPTER V.

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. Genucius in 280, and by the tribunes of the
people, with the support of the consuls Valerius and Æmilius, in
284.[133]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


[Sidenote: Résumé.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



CHAPTER III.

CONQUEST OF ITALY.

(From 416 to 488.)


[Sidenote: Description of Italy.]

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

[Illustration: GENERAL MAP OF ANCIENT ITALY.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


[Sidenote: Treatment of the Vanquished Peoples.]

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

Let us examine the conditions of these various categories:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

The towns nearest Rome received the rights of city and suffrage.[186]
Others received the title of allies and the privilege of preserving
their own institutions, but they lost a part of their territory.[187] As
to the Latin colonies founded before in the old country of the Volsci,
they formed the nucleus of the Latin allies (_socii nominis Latini_).
Velitræ, alone, having already revolted several times, was treated with
great rigour; Antium was compelled to surrender its ships, and become a
maritime colony.

These severe, but equitable measures, had pacified Latium; applied to
the rest of Italy, and even to foreign countries, they will facilitate
everywhere the progress of Roman domination.

The momentary alliance with the Samnites had permitted Rome to reduce
the Latins; nevertheless the Senate, without hesitation, turned against
the former again as soon as the moment appeared convenient. It
concluded, in 422, a treaty with the Gauls and Alexander Molossus, who,
having landed near Pæstum, attacked the Lucanians and the Samnites. This
King of Epirus, the uncle of Alexander the Great, had been called into
Italy by the Tarentines; but his premature death disappointed the hopes
to which his co-operation had given rise, and the Samnites recommenced
their incursions on the lands of their neighbours. The intervention of
Rome put a stop to the war. All the forces of the Republic were employed
in reducing the revolt of the Volscian towns of Fundi and
Privernum.[188] In 425, Anxur (_Terracina_) was declared a Roman colony,
and, in 426, Fregellæ (_Ceprano?_), a Latin colony.

The establishment of these fortresses, and of those of Cales and Antium,
secured the communications with Campania; the Liris and the Vulturnus
became in that direction the principal lines of defence of the Romans.
The cities situated on the shores of that magnificent gulf called
_Crater_ by the ancients, and in our days the _Gulf of Naples_,
perceived then the dangers which threatened them. They turned their eyes
towards the population of the interior, who were no less alarmed for
their independence.


[Sidenote: Second Samnite War.]

V. The fertile countries which bordered the western shore of the
peninsula were destined to excite the covetousness of the Romans and the
Samnites, and become the prey of the conqueror. “Campania, indeed,” says
Florus,[189] “is the finest country of Italy, and even of the whole
world. There is nothing milder than its climate. Spring flourishes there
twice every year. There can be nothing more fertile than its soil. It is
called the garden of Ceres and Bacchus. There is not a more hospitable
sea than that which bathes its shores.” In 427, the two peoples
disputed the possession of it, as they had done in 411. The inhabitants
of Palæopolis having attacked the Roman colonists of the _ager
Campanus_, the consuls marched against that place, which soon received
succour from the Samnites and the inhabitants of Nola, while Rome formed
an alliance with the Apulians and the Lucanians. The siege dragged on,
and the necessity of continuing the campaign beyond the ordinary limit
led to the prolongation of the command of Publilius Philo with the title
of proconsul, which appeared for the first time in the military annals.
The Samnites were soon driven from Campania; the Palæopolitans
submitted; their town was demolished; but they formed close to it a new
establishment, at Naples (_Neapolis_), where a new treaty guaranteed
them an almost absolute independence, on the condition of furnishing a
certain number of vessels to Rome. After that, nearly all the Greek
towns, reduced one after another, obtained the same favourable
conditions, and formed the class of the _socii navales_.[190]

Yet the war was protracted in the mountains of the Apennine. Tarentum
united with the Samnites, the only people who were still to be
feared,[191] and the Lucanians abandoned the alliance of the Romans;
but, in 429, the two most celebrated captains of the time, Q. Fabius
Rullianus and Papirius Cursor, penetrated into the country of Samnium,
and compelled the enemy to pay an indemnity for the war and accept a
year’s truce.

At this epoch, an unforeseen event, which changed the destinies of the
world, came to demonstrate the difference between the rapid creation of
a man of genius and the patient work of an intelligent aristocracy.
Alexander the Great, after having shone like a meteor, and brought into
subjection the most powerful kingdoms of Asia, died at Babylon. His
fruitful and decisive influence, which carried the civilization of
Greece into the East, survived him, but at his death, the empire he
founded became in a few years dismembered (431); the Roman aristocracy,
on the contrary, perpetuating itself from age to age, pursued more
slowly, but without interruption, the system which, binding again the
peoples about a common centre, was destined by little and little to
secure her domination over Italy first, and then over the universe.

The defection of a part of the Apulians, in 431, encouraged the Samnites
to take arms again; defeated in the following years, they asked for the
restoration of friendly relations, but the haughty refusal of Rome led,
in 433, to the famous defeat of the Furcæ Caudinæ. The generosity of the
Samnite general, Pontus Herennius, who granted their lives to so many
thousands of prisoners on condition of restoring to force the old
treaties, had no effect upon the Senate. Four legions had passed under
the yoke--a circumstance in which the Senate only saw a new affront to
revenge. The treaty of Caudium was not ratified, and subterfuges little
excusable, although approved at a later period by Cicero,[192] gave to
the refusal an appearance of justice.

Meanwhile the Senate exerted itself vigorously to repair this check, and
soon Publilius Philo defeated the enemies in Samnium, and, in Apulia,
Papirius, in his turn, caused seven thousand Samnites to pass under the
yoke. The vanquished solicited peace, but in vain; they only obtained a
truce for two years (436), and it had hardly expired, when, penetrating
into the country of the Volsci, as far as the neighbourhood of
Terracina, and taking a position at Lautulæ, they defeated a Roman army
raised hastily and commanded by Q. Fabius (439). Capua deserted, and
Nola, Nuceria, the Aurunci, and the Volsci of the Liris took part openly
with the Samnites. The spirit of rebellion spread as far as Præneste.
Rome was in danger. The Senate required its utmost energy to restrain
populations whose fidelity was always doubtful. Fortune seconded its
efforts, and the allies, who had proved traitors, received a cruel
chastisement, explained by the terror they had inspired. In 440,[193]
not far from Caudium, a numerous army encountered the Samnites, who lost
30,000 men, and were driven back into the Apennine territory. The Roman
legions proceeded to encamp before their capital, Bovianum, and there
took up their winter quarters.

The year following (441), Rome, less occupied in fighting, profited by
this circumstance to seize upon advantageous positions, establishing in
Campania and Apulia colonies which surrounded the territory of Samnium.
At the same epoch, Appius Claudius transformed into a regular causeway
the road which has preserved his name.[194] The Romans turned their
attention to the defence of the coasts and communication by sea; a
colony was sent to the isle of Pontia,[195] opposite Tarracina, and the
armament of a fleet was commenced, which was placed under the command of
_duumviri navales_.[196] The war had lasted fifteen years, and, although
Rome had only succeeded in driving back the Samnites into their own
territory, she had conquered two provinces, Apulia and Campania.


[Sidenote: Third Samnite war. Coalition of Samnites, Etruscans,
Umbrians, and Hernici (443-449).]

VI. A struggle so desperate had produced its effect even in Etruria, and
the old league was formed again. Inured to war by their daily combats
with the Gauls, and emboldened by the reports of the defeat of Lautulæ,
the Etruscans believed that the moment had arrived for recovering their
ancient territory to the south of the Ciminian forest; they were further
encouraged by the attitude of the peoples of Central Italy, who were
weary of the continual passing of legions. From 443 to 449, the armies
of the Republic were obliged to face different enemies at the same time.
In Etruria, Fabius Rullianus relieved Sutrium, a rampart of Rome on the
north;[197] he passed through the Ciminian forest, and by the victories
of Lake Vadimo (445)[198] and Perusia compelled all the Etruscan towns
to ask for peace. At the same time, an army laid waste the country of
the Samnites; and a Roman fleet, composed of vessels furnished by the
maritime allies, took the offensive for the first time. Its attempt near
Nuceria Alfaterna (_Nocera_, a town of Campania) was unfortunate.

War next breaks out again in Apulia, Samnium, and Etruria, where the
aged Papirius Cursor, named dictator anew, gains a brilliant victory at
Langula (445). The year following Fabius penetrates again into Samnium,
and the other consul, Decius, maintains Etruria. Suddenly the Umbrians
conceive the project of seizing Rome by surprise. The consuls are
recalled for the defence of the town. Fabius meets the Etruscans at
Mevania (on the confines of Etruria and Umbria), and, the year
following, at Allifæ (447). Among the prisoners were some Æqui and
Hernici. Their towns, feeling themselves thus compromised, declared open
war against the Romans (448). The Samnites recovered courage; but the
prompt reduction of the Hernici allowed the Senate to concentrate its
forces. Two armies, penetrating into Samnium by way of Apulia and
Campania, re-established the old frontiers. Bovianum was taken for the
third time, and during six months the country was delivered up to
devastation. In vain Tarentum tried to raise new quarrels for the
Republic, and to force the Lucanians to embrace the cause of the
Samnites. The successes of the Roman arms led to the conclusion of
treaties of peace with all the peoples of Southern Italy, constrained
thenceforward to acknowledge the _majesty_ of the Roman people. The Æqui
remained alone exposed to the wrath of Rome; the Senate did not forget
that at Allifæ they had fought in the ranks of the enemy, and, once
freed from its more serious embarrassments, it inflicted on this people
a terrible chastisement: forty-one places were taken and burnt in fifty
days. This period of six years thus terminated with the submission of
the Hernici and Æqui.

Five years less agitated left Rome time to regulate the position of its
new subjects, and to establish colonies and ways of communication.

The Hernici were treated in the same manner as the Latins, in 416, and
deprived of _commercium_ and _connubium_. Prefects and the law of the
Cærites were imposed on Anagnia, Frusino, and other towns guilty of
desertion. The cities which had remained faithful preserved their
independence and the title of allies (448);[199] the Æqui lost a part of
their territory and received the right of city without suffrage (450).
The Samnites, sufficiently humiliated, obtained at last the renewal of
their ancient conventions (450).[200] _Fœdera non æqua_ were
concluded with the Marsi, the Peligni, the Marrucini, the Frentani
(450), the Vestini (452), and the Picentini (455).[201] Rome treated
with Tarentum on a footing of equality, and engaged not to let her fleet
pass the Lacinian Promontory to the south of the Gulf of Tarentum.[202]

Thus, on the one hand, the territories shared among the Roman citizens;
on the other, the number of the municipia were considerably augmented.
Further, the Republic had acquired new allies; she possessed at length
the passages of the Apennines and commanded both seas.[203] A girdle of
Latin fortresses protected Rome and broke the communications between the
north and south of Italy; among the Marsi and the Æqui, there were Alba
and Carseoli; Sora, towards the sources of the Liris; and Narnia, in
Umbria. Military roads connected the colonies with the metropolis.


[Sidenote: Fourth Samnite War. Second coalition of the Samnites,
Etruscans, Umbrians, and Gauls (456-464).]

VII. Peace could not last long: between Rome and the Samnites it was a
duel to death. In 456, these latter had already sufficiently recovered
from their disasters to attempt once more the fortune of arms.[204] Rome
sends to the succour of the Lucanians, suddenly attacked, two consular
armies. Vanquished at Tifernum by Fabius, at Maleventum by Decius, the
Samnites witness the devastation of their whole country. Still they do
not lose courage; their chief, Gellius Egnatius, conceives a plan which
places Rome in great danger. He divides the Samnite army into three
bodies: the first remains to defend the country; the second takes the
offensive in Campania; the third, which he commands in person, throws
itself into Etruria, and, increased by the junction of the Etruscans,
the Gauls, and the Umbrians, soon forms a numerous army.[205] The storm
roared on all sides, and, while the Roman generals were occupied some
in Samnium and others in Campania, despatches arrived from Appius,
placed at the head of the army of Etruria, announcing a terrible
coalition formed in silence by the peoples of the north, who were
concentrating all their forces in Umbria for the purpose of marching
upon Rome.

The terror was extreme, but the energy of the Romans was equal to the
danger. All able men, even to the freedmen, were enrolled, and ninety
thousand soldiers were raised. Under these grave circumstances (458),
Fabius and Decius were, once again, raised to the supreme magistracy,
and gained, under the walls of Sentinum, a brilliant victory, long
disputed. During the battle, Decius devoted himself, as his father had
done before. The coalition once dissolved, Fabius defeated another army
which had issued from Perusia, and then came to receive the honour of a
triumph in Rome. Etruria was subdued (460), and obtained a truce of
forty years.[206]

The Samnites still maintained an obstinate struggle of mingled successes
and reverses. In 461, after having taken an oath to conquer or die,
thirty thousand of them were left on the field of battle of Aquilonia. A
few months later, the celebrated Pontius, the hero of Furcæ Caudinæ,
re-appeared, at the end of twenty-nine years, at the head of his
fellow-citizens, and inflicted upon the son of Fabius a check, which the
latter soon retrieved with the assistance of his father.[207] Finally,
in 464, two Roman armies re-commenced, in Samnium, a war of
extermination, which led for the fourth time to the renewal of the
ancient treaties and the cession of a certain extent of territory. At
the same epoch, an insurrection which broke out in the Sabine territory
was put down by Curius Dentatus. Central Italy was conquered.

The peace with the Samnites lasted five years (464-469). Rome extended
her frontiers, and fortified those of the peoples placed under her
protectorate; and at the same time established new military forts.

The right of city without suffrage was accorded to the Sabines, and
prefects were given to some of the towns of the valley of the Vulturnus
(_Venafrum_ and _Allifæ_).[208] A Latin colony, of twenty thousand men,
was sent to Venusia to watch over Southern Italy.[209] It commanded at
the same time Samnium, Apulia, and Lucania. If, owing to the treaty
concluded with the Greek towns, the Roman supremacy extended over the
south of the peninsula, to the north the Etruscans could not be reckoned
as allies, since nothing more than truces had been concluded with them.
In Umbria, the small tribe of the Sarsinates remained independent, and
all the coast district from the Rubicon to the Æsis was in the power of
the Senones; on their southern frontier the Roman colony of Sena Gallica
(_Sinigaglia_) was founded; the coast of Picenum was watched by that of
Castrum Novum and by the Latin fortress of Hatria (465).[210]


[Sidenote: Third coalition of the Etruscans, Gauls, Lucanians, and
Tarentines (469-474).]

VIII. The power of Rome had increased considerably. The Samnites, who
hitherto had played the first part, were no longer in a condition to
plan further coalitions, and one people alone could hardly be rash
enough to provoke the Republic. Yet the Lucanians, always hesitating,
gave this time the signal for a general revolt.

The attack on Thurium, by the Lucanians and Bruttians, became the
occasion of a new league, into which entered successively the
Tarentines, the Samnites, the Etruscans, and even the Gauls. The north
was soon in flames, and Etruria again became the battle-field. A Roman
army, which had hastened to relieve Arretium, was put to rout by the
Etruscans united with Gaulish mercenaries. The Senones, to whom these
belonged, having massacred the Roman ambassadors sent to expostulate on
their violation of the treaty with the Republic, the Senate sent against
them two legions who drove them back beyond the Rubicon. The Gaulish
tribe of the Boians, alarmed by the fate of the Senones, descended
immediately into Umbria, and, rallying the Etruscans, prepared to march
to renew the sack of Rome; but their march was arrested, and two
successive victories, at Lake Vadimo, (471) and Populonia (472), enabled
the Senate to conclude a convention which drove back the Boians into
their old territory. Hostilities continued with the Etruscans during two
years, after which their submission completed the conquest of Northern
Italy.


[Sidenote: Pyrrhus in Italy. Submission of Tarentum (474-488).]

IX. Free to the north, the Romans turned their efforts against the
south of Italy; war was declared against Tarentum, the people of which
had attacked a Roman flotilla. While the consul Æmilius invested the
town, the first troops of Pyrrhus, called in by the Tarentines,
disembarked in the port (474).

This epoch marks a new phase in the destinies of Rome, who is going, for
the first time, to measure herself with Greece. Hitherto the legions
have never had to combat really regular armies, but they have become
disciplined in war by incessant struggles in the mountains of Samnium
and Etruria; henceforth they will have to face old soldiers disciplined
in skilful tactics and commanded by an experienced warrior. The King of
Epirus, after having already twice lost and recovered his kingdom, and
invaded and abandoned Macedonia, dreamt of conquering the West. On the
news of his arrival at the head of twenty-five thousand soldiers and
twenty elephants,[211] the Romans enrolled all citizens capable of
bearing arms, even the proletaries; but, admirable example of courage!
they rejected the support of the Carthaginian fleet with this proud
declaration: “The Republic only entertains wars which it can sustain
with its own forces.”[212] While fifty thousand men, under the orders of
the consul Lævinus, march against the King of Epirus, to prevent his
junction with the Samnites, another army enters Lucania. The consul
Tiberius Coruncanius holds Etruria, again in agitation. Lastly, an army
of reserve guards the capital.

Lævinus encountered the King of Epirus near Heraclea, a colony of
Tarentum (474). Seven times in succession the legions charged the
phalanx, which was on the point of giving way, when the elephants,
animals unknown to the Romans, decided the victory in favour of the
enemy. A single battle had delivered to Pyrrhus all the south of the
Peninsula, where the Greek towns received him with enthusiasm.

But, though victor, he had sustained considerable losses, and learned at
the same time the effeminacy of the Greeks of Italy, and the energy of a
people of soldiers. He offered peace, and asked of the Senate liberty
for the Samnites, the Lucanians, and especially for the Greek towns. Old
Appius Claudius declared it impossible so long as Pyrrhus occupied
Italian soil, and peace was refused. The king then resolved to march
upon Rome through Campania, where his troops made great booty.

Lævinus, made prudent by his defeat, satisfied himself with watching the
enemy’s army, and succeeded in covering Capua; whence he followed
Pyrrhus from place to place, looking out for a favourable opportunity.
This prince, advancing by the Latin Way, had reached Præneste without
obstacle,[213] when, surrounded by three Roman armies, he found himself
under the necessity of falling back and retiring into Lucania. Next
year, reckoning on finding new auxiliaries among the peoples of the
east, he attacked Apulia; but the fidelity of the allies in Central
Italy was not shaken. Victorious at Asculum (_Ascoli di Satriano_)
(475), but without a decisive success, and encountering always the same
resistance, he seized the first opportunity of quitting Italy to conquer
Sicily (476-78). During this time, the Senate re-established the Roman
domination in Southern Italy, and even seized upon some of the Greek
towns, among the rest Locri and Heraclea.[214] Samnium, Lucania, and
Bruttium were again given up to the power of the legions, and forced to
surrender lands and renew treaties of alliance; on the coast, Tarentum
and Rhegium alone remained independent. The Samnites still resisted, and
the Roman army encamped in their country in 478 and 479. Meanwhile
Pyrrhus returns to Italy, reckoning on arriving in time to deliver
Samnium; but he is defeated at Beneventum by Curius Dentatus, and
returns to his country. The invasion of Pyrrhus, cousin of Alexander the
Great; and one of his successors, appears as one of the last efforts of
Grecian civilisation expiring at the feet of the rising grandeur of
Roman civilisation.

The war against the King of Epirus produced two remarkable results: it
improved the Romans in military tactics, and introduced between the
combatants those mutual regards of civilised nations which teach men to
honour their adversaries, to spare the vanquished, and to lay aside
wrath when the struggle is ended. The King of Epirus treated his Roman
prisoners with great generosity. Cineas, sent to the Senate at Rome, and
Fabricius, envoy to Pyrrhus, carried back from their mission a profound
respect for those whom they had combated.

In the following years Rome took Tarentum (482),[215] finally pacified
Samnium, and took possession of Rhegium (483-485). Since the battle of
Mount Gaurus, seventy-two years had passed, and several generations had
succeeded each other, without seeing the end of this long and sanguinary
quarrel. The Samnites had been nearly exterminated, and yet the spirit
of independence and liberty remained deeply rooted in their mountains.
When, at the end of two centuries and a half, the war of the allies
shall come, it is there still that the cause of equality of rights will
find its strongest support.

The other peoples underwent quickly the laws of the conqueror. The
inhabitants of Picenum, as a punishment for their revolt, were despoiled
of a part of their territory, and a certain number among them received
new lands in the south of Campania, near the Gulf of Salernum
(_Picentini_)(486). In 487, the submission of the Salentines allowed the
Romans to seize Brundusium, the most important port of the
Adriatic.[216] The Sarsinates were reduced the years following.[217]
Finally, Volsinium, a town of Etruria, was again numbered among the
allies of the Republic. The Sabines received the right of suffrage.
Italy, become henceforth Roman, extended from the Rubicon to the Straits
of Messina.


[Sidenote: Preponderance of Rome.]

X. During this period, the conquest of the subjugated countries was
ensured by the foundation of colonies. Rome became thus encircled by a
girdle of fortresses commanding all the passages which led to Latium,
and closing the roads to Campania, Samnium, Etruria, and Gaul.[218]

At the opening of the struggle which ended in the conquest of Italy,
there were only twenty-seven tribes of Roman citizens; the creation of
eight new tribes (the two last in 513) raised finally the number to
thirty-five, of which twenty-one were reserved to the old Roman people
and fourteen to the new citizens. Of these the Etruscans had four; the
Latins, the Volsci, the Ausones, the Æqui, and the Sabines, each two;
but, these tribes being at a considerable distance from the capital, the
new citizens could hardly take part in the comitia, and the majority,
with its influence, remained with those who dwelt at Rome.[219] After
513, no more tribes were created; those who received the rights of
citizens were only placed in the previously existing tribes; so that the
members of one individual tribe were scattered in the provinces, and the
number of those inscribed went on increasing continually by individual
additions, and by the tendency more and more apparent to raise the
municipia of the second order to the rank of the first order. Thus,
towards the middle of the sixth century, the towns of the Æqui, the
Hernici, the Volsci, and a part of those of Campania, including the
ancient Samnite cities of Venafrum and Allifæ, obtained the right of
city with suffrage.

Rome, towards the end of the fifth century, thus ruled, though in
different degrees, the peoples of Italy proper. The Italian State, if we
may give it that name, was composed of a reigning class, the citizens;
of a class protected, or held in guardianship, the allies; and of a
third class, the subjects. Allies or subjects were all obliged to
furnish military contingents. The maritime Greek towns furnished sailors
to the fleet. Even the cities, which preserved their independence for
their interior affairs, obeyed, so far as the military administration
was concerned, special functionaries appointed by the metropolis.[220]
The consuls had the right of raising in the countries bordering on the
theatre of war all men capable of bearing arms. The equipment and pay of
the troops remained at the charge of the cities; Rome provided for their
maintenance during war. The auxiliary infantry was ordinarily equal in
number to that of the Romans, the cavalry double or triple.

In exchange for this military assistance, the allies had a right to a
part of the conquered territory, and, in return for an annual rent, to
the usufruct of the domains of the State. These domains, considerable in
the peninsula,[221] formed the sole source of income which the treasury
derived from the allies, free in other respects from tribute. Four
questors (_quæstores classici_) were established to watch over the
execution of the orders of the Senate, the equipment of the fleet, and
the collection of the farm-rents.

Rome reserved to herself exclusively the direction of the affairs of the
exterior, and presided alone over the destinies of the Republic. The
allies never interfered in the decisions of the Forum, and each town
kept within the narrow limits of its communal administration. The
Italian nationality was thus gradually constituted by means of this
political centralisation, without which the different peoples would have
mutually weakened each other by intestine wars, more ruinous than
foreign wars, and Italy would not have been in a condition to resist the
double pressure of the Gauls and the Carthaginians.

The form adopted by Rome to rule Italy was the best possible, but only
as a transition form. The object to be aimed at was, in fact, the
complete assimilation of all the inhabitants of the peninsula, and this
was evidently the aim of the wise policy of the Camilli and the Fabii.
When we consider that the colonies of citizens presented the faithful
image of Rome; that the Latin colonies had analogous institutions and
laws; and that a great number of Roman citizens and Latin allies were
dispersed, in the different countries of the peninsula, over the vast
territories ceded as the consequence of war, we may judge how rapid must
have been the diffusion of Roman manners and the Latin language.

If Rome, in later times, had not the wisdom to seize the favourable
moment in which assimilation, already effected in people’s minds, might
have passed into the domain of facts, the reason of it was the
abandonment of the principles of equity which had guided the Senate in
the first ages of the Republic, and, above all, the corruption of the
magnates, interested in maintaining the inferior condition of the
allies. The right of city extended to all the peoples of Italy, time
enough to be useful, would have given to the Republic a new force; but
an obstinate refusal became the cause of the revolution commenced by the
Gracchi, continued by Marius, extinguished for a moment by Sylla, and
completed by Cæsar.


[Sidenote: Strength of the Institutions.]

XI. At the epoch with which we are occupied, the Republic is in all its
splendour.

The institutions form remarkable men; the annual elections carry into
power those who are most worthy, and recall them to it after a short
interval. The sphere of action for the military chiefs does not extend
beyond the natural frontiers of the peninsula, and their ambition,
restrained in their duty by public opinion, does not exceed a legitimate
object, the union of all Italy under one dominion. The members of the
aristocracy seem to inherit the exploits as well as the virtues of their
ancestors, and neither poverty nor obscurity of birth prevent merit from
reaching it. Curius Dentatus, Fabricius, and Coruncanius, can show
neither riches nor the images of their ancestors, and yet they attain to
the highest dignities; in fact, the plebeian nobility walks on a footing
of equality with the patrician. Both, in separating from the multitude,
tend more and more to amalgamate together;[222] but they remain rivals
in patriotism and disinterestedness.

In spite of the taste for riches introduced by the war of the
Sabines,[223] the magistrates maintained their simplicity of manners,
and protected the public domain against the encroachments of the rich by
the rigorous execution of the law, which limited to five hundred acres
the property which an individual was allowed to possess.[224]

The first citizens presented the most remarkable examples of integrity
and self-denial. Marcus Valerius Corvus, after occupying twenty-one
curule offices, returns to his fields without fortune, though not
without glory (419). Fabius Rullianus, in the midst of his victories and
triumphs, forgets his resentment towards Papirius Cursor, and names him
dictator, sacrificing thus his private feelings to the interests of his
country (429). Marcus Curius Dentatus keeps for himself no part of the
rich spoils taken from the Sabines, and, after having vanquished
Pyrrhus, resumes the simplicity of country life (479).[225] Fabricius
rejects the money which the Samnites offer him for his generous
behaviour towards them, and disdains the presents of Pyrrhus (476).
Coruncanius furnishes an example of all the virtues.[226] Fabius Gurges,
Fabius Pictor, and Ogulnius, pour into the treasury the magnificent
gifts they had brought back from their embassy to Alexandria.[227] M.
Rutilius Censorinus, struck with the danger of entrusting twice in
succession the censorship in the same hands, refuses to be re-elected to
that office (488).

The names of many others might be cited, who, then and in later ages,
did honour to the Roman Republic; but let us add, that if the ruling
class knew how to call to it all the men of eminence, it forgot not to
recompense brilliantly those especially who favoured its interests:
Fabius Rullianus, for instance, the victor in so many battles, received
the name of “most great” (_Maximus_) only for having, at the time of his
censorship, annulled in the comitia the influence of the poor class,
composed of freedmen, whom he distributed among the urban tribes (454),
where their votes were lost in the multitude of others.[228]

The popular party, on its own side, ceased not to demand new
concessions, or to claim the revival of those which had fallen out of
use. Thus, it obtained, in 428, the re-establishment of the law of
Servius Tullius, which decided that the goods only of the debtor, and
not his body, should be responsible for his debt.[229] In 450, Flavius,
the son of a freedman, made public the calendar and the formulæ of
proceedings, which deprived the patricians of the exclusive knowledge of
civil and religious law.[230] But the lawyers found means of weakening
the effects of the measure of Flavius by inventing new formulæ, which
were almost unintelligible to the public.[231] The plebeians, in 454,
were admitted into the college of the pontiffs, and into that of the
augurs; the same year, it was found necessary to renew for the third
time the law Valeria, _de provocatione_.

In 468, the people again withdrew to the Janiculum, demanding the
remission of debts, and crying out against usury.[232] Concord was
restored only when they had obtained, first, by the law Hortensia, that
the plebiscita should be obligatory on all; and next, by the law Marcia,
that the orders obtained through Publilius Philo in 415 should be
restored to vigour. These orders, as we have seen above, obliged the
Senate to declare in advance whether or not the laws presented to the
comitia were contrary to public and religious law.[233]

The ambition of Rome seemed to be without bounds; yet all her wars had
for reason or pretext the defence of the weak and the protection of her
allies. Indeed, the cause of the wars against the Samnites was sometimes
the defence of the inhabitants of Capua, sometimes that of the
inhabitants of Palæopolis, sometimes that of the Lucanians. The war
against Pyrrhus had its origin in the assistance claimed by the
inhabitants of Thurium; and the support claimed by the Mamertines will
soon lead to the first Punic war.

The Senate, we have seen, put in practice the principles which found
empires and the virtues to which war gives birth. Thus, for all the
citizens, equality of rights; in face of danger to their country,
equality of duties and even suspension of liberty. To the most worthy,
honours and the command. No magisterial charge for him who has not
served in the ranks of the army. The example is furnished by the most
illustrious and richest families: at the battle of Lake Regillus (258),
the principal senators were mingled in the ranks of the legions;[234] at
the combat near the Cremera, the three hundred and six Fabii, who all,
according to Titus Livius, were capable of filling the highest offices,
perished fighting. Later, at Cannæ, eighty senators, who had enrolled
themselves as mere soldiers, fell on the field of battle.[235] The
triumph is accorded for victories which enlarged the territory, but not
for those which only recovered lost ground. No triumph in civil
wars:[236] in such case, success, be what it may, is always a subject
for public mourning. The consuls or proconsuls seek to be useful to
their country without false susceptibility; to-day in the first rank,
to-morrow in the second, they serve with the same devotion under the
orders of him whom they commanded the previous day. Servilius, consul in
281, becomes, the year following, the lieutenant of Valerius. Fabius,
after so many triumphs, consents to be only lieutenant to his son. At a
later period, Flamininus, who had vanquished the King of Macedonia,
descends again through patriotism, after the victory of Cynoscephalæ,
to the grade of tribune of the soldiers;[237] the great Scipio himself,
after the defeat of Hannibal, serves as lieutenant under his brother in
the war against Antiochus.

To sacrifice everything to patriotism is the first duty. By devoting
themselves to the gods of Hades, like Curtius and the two Decii, people
believed they bought, at the price of their lives, the safety of the
others or victory.[238] Discipline is enforced even to cruelty: Manlius
Torquatus, after the example of Postumius Tubertus, punishes with death
the disobedience of his son, though he had gained a victory. The
soldiers who have fled are decimated; those who abandon their ranks or
the field of battle are devoted, some to execution, others to dishonour;
and those who have allowed themselves to be made prisoners by the enemy
are disdained as unworthy of the price of freedom.[239]

Surrounded by warlike neighbours, Rome must either triumph or cease to
exist; hence her superiority in the art of war, for, as Montesquieu
says, in transient wars most of the examples are lost; peace brings
other ideas, and its faults and even its virtues are forgotten; hence
that contempt of treason and that disdain for the advantages it
promises: Camillus sends home to their parents the children of the first
families of Falerii, delivered up to him by their schoolmaster; the
Senate rejects with indignation the offer of the physician of Pyrrhus,
who proposes to poison that prince;--hence that religious observance of
oaths and that respect for engagements which have been contracted: the
Roman prisoners to whom Pyrrhus had given permission to repair to Rome
for the festival of Saturn, all return to him faithful to their word;
and Regulus leaves the most memorable example of faithfulness to his
oath!--hence that skilful and inflexible policy which refuses peace
after a defeat, or a treaty with the enemy so long as he is on the soil
of their country; which makes use of war to divert people from domestic
troubles;[240] gains the vanquished by benefits if they submit, and
admits them by degrees into the great Roman family; and, if they resist,
strikes them without pity and reduces them to slavery;[241]--hence that
anxious provision for multiplying upon the conquered territories the
race of agriculturists and soldiers;--hence, lastly, the improving
spectacle of a town which becomes a people, and of a people which
embraces the world.



CHAPTER IV.

PROSPERITY OF THE BASIN OF THE MEDITERRANEAN BEFORE THE PUNIC WARS.


[Sidenote: Commerce of the Mediterranean.]

I. Rome had required two hundred and forty-four years to form her
constitution under the kings, a hundred and seventy-two to establish and
consolidate the consular Republic, seventy-two to complete the conquest
of Italy, and now it will cost her nearly a century and a half to obtain
the domination of the world--that is, of Northern Africa, Spain, the
south of Gaul, Illyria, Epirus, Greece, Macedonia, Asia Minor, Syria,
and Egypt. Before undertaking the recital of these conquests, let us
halt an instant to consider the condition of the basin of the
Mediterranean at this period, of that sea round which were successively
unfolded all the great dramas of ancient history. In this examination we
shall see, not without a feeling of regret, vast countries where
formerly produce, monuments, riches, numerous armies and fleets--all,
indeed, revealed an advanced state of civilisation--now deserts or in a
state of barbarism.

The Mediterranean had seen grow and prosper in turn on its coasts Sidon,
and Tyre, and then Greece.

[Illustration: MAP OF THE BASIN OF THE MEDITERRANEAN.]

Sidon, already a flourishing city before the time of Homer, is soon
eclipsed by the supremacy of Tyre; then Greece comes to carry on, in
competition with her, the commerce of the interior sea; an age of
pacific greatness and fruitful rivalries. To the Phœnicians
chiefly, the South, the East, Africa, Asia beyond Mount Taurus, the
Erythrean Sea (_the Red Sea_ and _the Persian Gulf_), the ocean, and the
distant voyages. To the Greeks, all the northern coasts, which they
covered with their thousand settlements. Phœnicia devotes herself to
adventurous enterprises and lucrative speculations. Greece, artistic
before becoming a trader, propagates by her colonies her mind and her
ideas.

This fortunate emulation soon disappears before the creation of two new
colonies sprung from their bosom. The splendour of Carthage replaces
that of Tyre. Alexandria is substituted for Greece. Thus a Western or
Spanish Phœnicia shares the commerce of the world with an Eastern and
Egyptian Greece, the fruit of the intellectual conquests of Alexander.


[Sidenote: Northern Africa.]

II. Rich in the spoils of twenty different peoples, Carthage was the
proud capital of a vast empire. Its ports, hollowed out by the hand of
man, were capable of containing a great number of ships.[242] Her
citadel, Byrsa, was two miles in circuit. On the land side the town was
defended by a triple enclosure twenty-five stadia in length, thirty
cubits high, and supported by towers of four storeys, capable of giving
shelter to 4,000 horse, 300 elephants, and 20,000 foot soldiers;[243] it
enclosed an immense population, since, in the last years of its
resistance, after a struggle of a century, it still counted 700,000
inhabitants.[244] Its monuments were worthy of its greatness: among its
remarkable buildings was the temple of the god Aschmoun, assimilated by
the Greeks to Æsculapius;[245] that of the sun, covered with plates of
gold valued at a thousand talents;[246] and the mantle or _peplum_,
destined for the image of their great goddess, which cost a hundred and
twenty.[247] The empire of Carthage extended from the frontiers of
Cyrenaica (the country of _Barca_, in the regency of Tripoli) into
Spain; she was the metropolis of all the north of Africa, and, in Libya
alone, possessed three hundred towns.[248] Nearly all the isles of the
Mediterranean, to the west and south of Italy, had received her
factories. Carthage had imposed her sovereignty upon all the ancient
Phœnician establishments in this part of the world, and had levied
upon them an annual contingent of soldiers and tribute. In the interior
of Africa, she sent caravans to seek elephants, ivory, gold, and black
slaves, which she afterwards exported[249] to the trading places on the
Mediterranean. In Sicily, she gathered oil and wine; in the isle of
Elba, she mined for iron; from Malta, she drew valuable tissues; from
Corsica, wax and honey; from Sardinia, corn, metals, and slaves; from
the Baleares, mules and fruits; from Spain, gold, silver, and lead; from
Mauritania, the hides of animals; she sent as far as the extremity of
Britain, to the Cassiterides (_the Scilly Islands_), ships to purchase
tin.[250] Within her walls industry flourished greatly, and tissues of
great celebrity were fabricated.[251]

No market of the ancient world could be compared with that of Carthage,
to which men of all nations crowded. Greeks, Gauls, Ligurians,
Spaniards, Libyans, came in multitudes to serve under her standard;[252]
the Numidians lent her a redoubtable cavalry.[253] Her fleet was
formidable; it amounted at this epoch to five hundred vessels. Carthage
possessed a considerable arsenal;[254] we may appreciate its importance
from the fact, that, after her conquest by Scipio, she delivered to him
two hundred thousand suits of armour, and three thousand machines of
war.[255] So many troops and stores imply immense revenues. Even after
the battle of Zama, Polybius could still call her the richest town in
the world. Yet she had already paid heavy contributions to the
Romans.[256] An excellent system of agriculture contributed no less than
her commerce to her prosperity. A great number of agricultural
colonies[257] had been established, which, in the time of Agathocles,
amounted to more than two hundred. They were ruined by the war (440 of
Rome).[258] Byzacena (_the southern part of the regency of Tunis_) was
the granary of Carthage.[259]

This province, surnamed _Emporia_, as being the trading country _par
excellence_, vaunted by the geographer Scylax[260] as the most
magnificent and fertile part of Libya. It had, in the time of Strabo,
numerous towns, so many magazines of the merchandise of the interior of
Africa. Polybius[261] speaks of its horses, oxen, sheep, and goats, as
forming innumerable herds, such as he had never seen elsewhere. The
small town of Leptis alone paid to the Carthaginians the enormous
contribution of a talent a day (5,821 francs [£232 16s.]).[262]

This fertility of Africa explains the importance of the towns on the
coast of the Syrtes, an importance, it is true, revealed by later
testimonies, because they date from the decline of Carthage, but which
must apply still more forcibly to the flourishing condition which
preceded it. In 537, the vast port of the isle Cercina (Kirkeni, in the
regency of Tunis, opposite Sfax) had paid ten talents to Servilius.[263]
More to the west, Hippo Regius (_Bona_) was still a considerable
maritime town in the time of Jugurtha.[264] Tingis (_Tangiers_), in
Mauritania, which boasted of a very ancient origin, carried on a great
trade with Bætica. Three African peoples in these countries lay under
the influence and often the sovereignty of Carthage: the Massylian
Numidians, who afterwards had Cirta (_Constantine_) for their capital;
the Massæsylian Numidians, who occupied the provinces of Algiers and
Oran; and the Mauri, or Moors, spread over Morocco. These nomadic
peoples maintained rich droves of cattle, and grew great quantities of
corn.

Hanno, a Carthaginian sea-captain, sent, towards 245, to explore the
extreme parts of the African coast beyond the Straits of Gades, had
founded a great number of settlements, no traces of which remained in
the time of Pliny.[265] These colonies introduced commerce among the
Mauritanian and Numidian tribes, the peoples of Morocco, and perhaps
even those of Senegal. But it was not only in Africa that the
possessions of the Carthaginians extended; they embraced Spain, Sicily,
and Sardinia.


[Sidenote: Spain.]

III. Iberia or Spain, with its six great rivers, navigable to the
ancients, its long chains of mountains, its dense woods, and the fertile
valleys of Bætica (_Andalusia_), appears to have nourished a population
numerous, warlike, rich by its mines, its harvests, and its commerce.
The centre of the peninsula was occupied by the Iberian and Celtiberian
races; on the coasts, the Carthaginians and the Greeks had settlements;
through contact with the Phœnician merchants, the populations of the
coast districts attained a certain degree of civilisation, and from the
mixture of the natives with the foreign colonists sprang a mongrel
population, which, while it preserved the Iberic character, had adopted
the mercantile habits of the Phœnicians and Carthaginians.

Once established in Spain, the Carthaginians and Greeks turned to useful
purpose the timber which covered the mountains. Gades (_Cadiz_), a sort
of factory founded at the extremity of Bætica by the Carthaginians,
became one of their principal maritime arsenals. It was there that the
ships were fitted out which ventured on the ocean in search of the
products of Armorica, or Britain, and even of the Canaries. Although
Gades had lost some of its importance by the foundation of Carthagena
(_New Carthage_), in 526, it had still, in the time of Strabo, so
numerous a population that it was in this respect inferior only to Rome.
The tables of the census showed five hundred citizens of the equestrian
order, a number equalled by none of the Italian cities, except Patavium
(_Padua_).[266] To Gades, celebrated for its temple of Hercules, flowed
the riches of all Spain. The sheep and horses of Bætica rivalled in
renown those of the Asturias. Corduba (_Cordova_), Hispalis (_Seville_),
where, at a later period, the Romans founded colonies, were already
great places of commerce, and had ports for the vessels which ascended
the Bætis (_Guadalquivir_).[267]

Spain was rich in precious metals; gold, silver, iron, were there the
object of industrial activity.[268] At Osca (_Huesca_), they worked
mines of silver; at Sisapo (_Almaden_), silver and mercury.[269] At
Cotinæ, copper was found along with gold. Among the Oretani, at Castulo
(_Cazlona_, on the Guadalimar), the silver mines, in the time of
Polybius, gave employment to 40,000 persons, and produced daily 25,000
drachmas.[270] In thirty-two years, the Roman generals carried home from
the peninsula considerable sums.[271] The abundance of metals in Spain
explains how so great a number of vessels of gold and silver was found
among many of the chiefs or petty kings of the Iberian nations. Polybius
compares one of them, for his luxury, with the king of the fabulous
Phæaces.[272]

To the north, and in the centre of the peninsula, agriculture and the
breeding of cattle were the principal sources of wealth. It was there
that were made the says (vests of flannel or goats’ hair), which were
exported in great numbers to Italy.[273] In the Tarraconese, the
cultivation of flax was very productive; the inhabitants had been the
first to weave those fine cloths called _carbasa_, which were objects
greatly prized as far as Greece.[274] Leather, honey, and salt were
brought by cargoes to the principal ports along the coast; at Emporiæ
(_Ampurias_), a settlement of the Phocæans in Catalonia; at
Saguntum,[275] founded by Greeks from the island of Zacynthus; at
Tarraco (_Tarragona_), one of the most ancient of the Phœnician
settlements in Spain; and at Malaca (_Malaga_), whence were exported all
sorts of salt fish.[276] Lusitania, neglected by the Phœnician or
Carthaginian ships, was less favoured. Yet we see, by the passage of
Polybius[277] which enumerates the mercantile exports of this province
with their prices, that its agricultural products were very
abundant.[278]

The prosperity of Spain appears also from the vast amount of its
population. According to some authors, Tiberius Gracchus took from the
Celtiberians three hundred _oppida_. In Turdetania (_part of
Andalusia_), according to Strabo, there were counted no less than two
hundred towns.[279] Appian, the historian of the Spanish wars, points
out the multitude of petty tribes which the Romans had to reduce,[280]
and during the campaign of Cn. Scipio, more than a hundred and twenty
submitted.[281]

Thus the Iberian peninsula was at that time reckoned among the most
populous and richest regions of Europe.


[Sidenote: Southern Gaul.]

IV. The part of Gaul which is bathed by the Mediterranean offers a
spectacle no less satisfactory. Numerous migrations, arriving from the
East, had pushed back the population of the Seine and the Loire towards
the mouths of the Rhône, and already, in the middle of the fourth
century before our era, the Gauls found themselves straitened in their
frontiers. More civilised than the Iberians, but not less energetic,
they combined gentle and hospitable manners with great activity, which
was further developed by their contact with the Greek colonies spread
from the maritime Alps to the Pyrenees. The cultivation of the fields
and the breeding of cattle furnished their principal wealth, and their
industry found support in the products of the soil and in its herds.
Their manufacture consisted of says, not less in repute than those of
the Celtiberians, and exported in great quantities to Italy. Good
sailors, the Gauls transported by water, on the Seine, the Rhine, the
Saône, the Rhône, and Loire, the merchandise and timber which, even from
the coasts of the Channel, were accumulated in the Phocæan trading
places on the Mediterranean.[282] Agde (_Agatha_), Antibes
(_Antipolis_), Nice (_Nicæa_), the isles of Hyères (_Stœchades_),
Monaco (_Portus Herculis Monœcei_), were so many naval stations which
maintained relations with Spain and Italy.[283]

Marseilles possessed but a very circumscribed territory, but its
influence reached far into the interior of Gaul. It is to this town we
owe the acclimatisation of the vine and the olive. Thousands of oxen
came every year to feed on the thyme in the neighbourhood of
Marseilles.[284] The Massilian merchants traversed Gaul in all
directions to sell their wines and the produce of their
manufactures.[285] Without rising to the rank of a great maritime power,
still the small Phocæan republic possessed sufficient resources to make
itself respected by Carthage; it formed an early alliance with the
Romans. Massilian houses had, as early as the fifth century of Rome,
established at Syracuse, as they did subsequently at Alexandria,
factories which show a great commercial activity.[286]


[Sidenote: Liguria, Cisalpine Gaul, Venetia, and Illyria.]

V. Alone in the Tyrrhene Sea, the Ligures had not yet risen out of that
almost savage life which the Iberians, sprung from the same stock, had
originally led. If some towns on the Ligurian coast, and especially
Genoa (_Genua_), carried on a maritime commerce, they supported
themselves by piracy[287] rather than by regular traffic.[288]

On the contrary, Cisalpine Gaul, properly so called, supported, as early
as the time of Polybius, a numerous population. We may form some idea of
it from the losses this province sustained during a period of
twenty-seven years, from 554 to 582; Livy gives a total of 257,400 men
killed, taken, or transported.[289] The Gaulish tribes settled in the
Cisalpine, though preserving their original manners, had, through their
contact with the Etruscans, arrived at a certain degree of civilisation.
The number of towns in this country was not very considerable, but it
contained a great abundance of villages.[290] Addicted to agriculture
like the other Gauls, the Cisalpines bred in their forests droves of
swine in such numbers, that they would have been sufficient, in the time
of Strabo, to provision all Rome.[291] The coins of pure gold, which in
recent times have been found in Cisalpine Gaul, especially between the
Po and the Adda, and which were struck by the Boii and some of the
Ligurian populations, furnish evidence of the abundance of that metal,
which was collected in the form of gold sand in the waters of the
rivers.[292] Moreover, certain towns of Etruscan origin, such as Mantua
(_Mantua_) and Padua (_Patavium_), preserved vestiges of the prosperity
they had reached at the time when the peoples of Tuscany extended their
dominion beyond the Po. At once a maritime town and a place of commerce,
Padua, at a remote epoch, possessed a vast territory, and could raise an
army of 120,000 men.[293] The transport of goods was facilitated by
means of canals crossing Venetia, partly dug by the Etruscans. Such
were those especially which united Ravenna with Altinum (_Altino_),
which became at a later period the grand store-house of the Cisalpine
territory.[294]

The commercial relations entertained by Venetia with Germany, Illyria,
and Rhætia, go back far beyond the Roman epoch, and, at a remote
antiquity, it was Venetia which received the amber from the shores of
the Baltic.[295] All the traffic which was afterwards concentrated at
Aquileia, founded by the Romans after the submission of the Veneti, had
then for its centre the towns of Venetia; and the numerous colonies
established by the Romans in this part of the peninsula are proofs of
its immense resources. Moreover, the Veneti, occupied in cultivating
their lands and breeding horses, had peaceful manners which facilitated
commercial relations, and contrasted with the piratical habits of the
populations spread over the north and north-eastern coasts of the
Adriatic.

The Istrians, the Liburni, and the Illyrians were the nations most
formidable, both by their corsairs and by their armies; their light and
rapid barques covered the Adriatic, and troubled the navigation between
Italy and Greece. In the year 524, the Illyrians sent to sea a hundred
_lembi_,[296] while their land army counted hardly more than 5,000
men.[297] Illyria was poor, and offered few resources to the Romans,
notwithstanding the fertility of its soil. Agriculture was neglected,
even in the time of Strabo. Istria contained a population much more
considerable, in proportion to its extent.[298] Yet she had, no more
than Dalmatia and the rest of Illyria, attained, at the epoch of which
we are speaking, that high degree of prosperity which she acquired
afterwards by the foundation of Tergeste (_Trieste_) and Pola. The Roman
conquest delivered the Adriatic from the pirates who infested it,[299]
and then only, the ports of Dyrrhachium and Apollonia obtained a
veritable importance.


[Sidenote: Epirus.]

VI. Epirus, a country of pastures and shepherds, intersected by
picturesque mountains, was a sort of Helvetia. Ambracia (now _Arta_),
which Pyrrhus had chosen for his residence, had become a very fine town,
and possessed two theatres. The palace of the king (_Pyrrheum_) formed a
veritable museum for it furnished for the triumph of M. Fulvius
Nobilior, in 565, two hundred and eighty-five statues in bronze, two
hundred and thirty in marble,[300] and paintings by Zeuxis, mentioned in
Pliny.[301] The town paid also, on this occasion, five hundred talents
(2,900,000 francs, [£116,000]), and offered the consul a crown of gold
weighing a hundred and fifty thousand talents (nearly 4,000
kilogrammes).[302] It appears that before the war of Paulus Æmilius,
this country contained a rather numerous population, and counted seventy
towns, most of them situated in the country of the Molossi.[303]. After
the battle of Pydna, the Roman general made so considerable a booty,
that, without reckoning the treasury’s share, each foot-soldier received
200 denarii (about 200 francs [£8]), and each horse-soldier 400; in
addition to which the sale of slaves arose to the enormous number of
150,000.


[Sidenote: Greece.]

VII. At the beginning of the first Punic War, Greece proper was divided
into four principal powers: Macedonia, Ætolia, Achaia, and Sparta. All
the continental part, which extends northward of the Gulf of Corinth as
far as the mountains of Pindus, was under the dependence of Philip; the
western part belonged to the Ætolians. The Peloponnesus was shared
between the Achæans, the tyrant of Sparta, and independent towns. Greece
had been declining during about a century, and seen her warlike spirit
weaken and her population diminish; and yet Plutarch, comprising under
this name the peoples of the Hellenic race, pretends that their country
furnished King Philip with the money, food, and provisions of his
army.[304] The Greek navy had almost disappeared. The Achæan league,
which comprised Argolis, Corinth, Sicyon, and the maritime cities of
Achæa, had few ships. On land the Hellenic forces were less
insignificant. The Ætolian league possessed an army of 10,000 men, and,
in the war against Philip, pretended to have contributed more than the
Romans to the victory of Cynoscephalæ. Greece was still rich in objects
of art of all descriptions. When, in 535, the King of Macedonia captured
the town of Thermæ, in Ætolia, he found in it more than two thousand
statues.[305]

Athens, in spite of the loss of her maritime supremacy, preserved the
remains of a civilization which had already attained the highest degree
of splendour,[306] and those incomparable buildings of the age of
Pericles, the mere name of which reminds us of all that the arts have
produced in greatest perfection. Among the most remarkable were the
Acropolis, with its Parthenon and its Propylæa, masterpieces of Phidias,
the statue of Minerva in gold and ivory, and another in bronze, the
casque and spear of which were seen afar off at sea.[307] The arsenal of
the Piræus, built by the architect Philo, was, according to Plutarch, an
admirable work.[308]

Sparta, although greatly fallen, was distinguished by its monuments and
by its manufactures; the famous portico of the Persians,[309] built
after the Median wars--the columns of which, in white marble,
represented the illustrious persons among the vanquished--was the
principal ornament of the market. Iron, obtained in abundance from Mount
Taygetus, was marvellously worked at Sparta, which was celebrated for
the manufacture of arms and agricultural instruments.[310] The coasts of
Laconia abounded in shells, from which was obtained the purple, most
valued after that of Phœnicia.[311] The port of Gytheum, very
populous, and very active in 559, still possessed great arsenals.[312]

In the centre of the peninsula, Arcadia, although its population was
composed of shepherds, had the same love for the arts as the rest of
Greece. It possessed two celebrated temples: that of Minerva at Tegæa,
built by the architect Scopas,[313] in which were united the three
orders of architecture, and that of Apollo, at Phigalea,[314] situated
at an elevation of 3,000 feet above the level of the sea, and the
remains of which still excite the wonder of travellers.

Elis, protected by its neutrality, was devoted to the arts of peace.
There agriculture flourished; its fisheries were productive; it had
manufactories of tissues of _byssus_ which rivalled the muslins of Cos,
and were sold for their weight in gold.[315] The town of Elis possessed
the finest gymnasium in Greece; people came to it to prepare themselves
(sometimes a year in advance) for competition in the Olympic games.[316]

Olympia was the holy city, celebrated for its sanctuary and its
consecrated garden, where stood, among a multitude of masterpieces of
art, one of the wonders of the world, the statue of Jupiter, the work of
Phidias,[317] the majesty of which was such, that Paulus Æmilius, when
he first saw it, believed he was in the presence of the divinity
himself.

Argos, the country of several celebrated artists, possessed temples,
fountains, a gymnasium, and a theatre; and its public place had served
for a field of battle to the armies of Pyrrhus and Antigonus. It
remained, until the subjugation by the Romans, one of the finest cities
of Greece. Within its territory were the superb temple of Juno, the
ancient sanctuary of the Argives, with the statue of the goddess in gold
and silver--the work of Polycletus, and the vale of Nemæa, where one of
the four national festivals of Greece was celebrated.[318] Argolis also
possessed Epidaurus, with its hot springs; its temple of Æsculapius,
enriched with the offerings of those who came to be cured of their
diseases;[319] and its theatre, one of the largest in the country.[320]

Corinth, admirably situated upon the narrow isthmus which separates the
Ægean Sea from the gulf which has preserved its name,[321] with its
dye-houses, its celebrated manufactories of carpets and of bronze, bore
witness also to the ancient prosperity of the Hellenic race. Its
population must have been considerable, since there were reckoned in it
460,000 slaves;[322] marble palaces rose on all sides, adorned with
statues and valuable vases. Corinth had the reputation of being the
most voluptuous of towns. Among its numerous temples, that of Venus had
in its service more than a thousand courtezans.[323] In the sale of the
booty made by Mummius, a painting by Aristides, representing Bacchus,
was sold for 600,000 sestertii.[324] There was seen in the triumph of
Metellus surnamed Macedonicus, a group, the work of Lysippus,
representing Alexander the Great, twenty-five horsemen, and nine
foot-soldiers slain at the battle of the Granicus; this group, taken at
Corinth, came from Dium in Macedonia.[325]

Other towns of Greece were no less rich in works of art.[326] The Romans
carried away from the little town of Eretria, at the time of the
Macedonian war, a great number of paintings and precious statues.[327]
We know, from the traveller Pausanias, how prodigious was the quantity
of offerings brought from the most diverse countries into the sanctuary
of Delphi. This town, which, by its reputation for sanctity and its
solemn games, the Pythian, was the rival of Olympia, gathered in its
temple during ages immense treasures; and when it was plundered by the
Phocæans, they found in it gold and silver enough to coin ten thousand
talents of money (about 58 millions of francs [£2,320,000]). The ancient
opulence of the Greeks had, nevertheless, passed into their colonies;
and, from the extremity of the Black Sea to Cyrene, numerous
establishments arose remarkable for their sumptuousness.


[Sidenote: Macedonia.]

VIII. Macedonia drew to herself, since the time of Alexander, the riches
and resources of Asia. Dominant over a great part of Greece and Thrace,
occupying Thessaly, and extending her sovereignty over Epirus, this
kingdom concentrated in herself the vital strength of those cities
formerly independent, which, two centuries before, were her rivals in
power and courage. Under an economical administration, the public
revenues rising from the royal domains,[328] from the silver mines in
Mount Pangeum, and from the taxes, were sufficient for the wants of the
country.[329] In 527, Antigonus sent to Rhodes considerable succours,
which furnish the measure of the resources of Macedonia.[330]

Towards the year 563 of Rome, Philip had, by wise measures, raised again
the importance of Macedonia. He collected in his arsenals materials for
equipping three armies and provisions for ten years. Under Perseus,
Macedonia was no less flourishing. That prince gave Cotys, for a service
of six months with 1,000 cavalry, the large sum of 200 talents.[331] At
the battle of Pydna, which completed his ruin, nearly 20,000 men
remained on the field, and 11,000 were made prisoners.[332] In richness
of equipment, the Macedonian troops far surpassed other armies. The
Leucaspidan phalanx was dressed in scarlet, and carried gilt armour; the
Chalcaspidan phalanx had shields of the finest brass.[333] The
prodigious splendour of the court of Perseus and that of his favourites
reveal still more the degree of opulence at which Macedonia had arrived.
All exhibited in their dresses and in their feasts a pomp equal to that
of kings.[334] Among the booty made by Paulus Æmilius were paintings,
statues, rich tapestries, vases of gold, silver, bronze, and ivory,
which were so many masterpieces.[335] His triumph was unequalled by any
other.[336]

Valerius of Antium estimates at more than 120 millions of sestertii
(about 30 millions of francs [£1,200,000]) the gold and silver exhibited
on this occasion.[337] Macedonia, as we see, had absorbed the ancient
riches of Greece. Thrace, long barbarous, began also to rise out of the
condition of inferiority in which it had so long languished. Numerous
Greek colonies, founded on the shores of the Pontus Euxinus, introduced
there civilisation and prosperity; and among these colonies, Byzantium,
though often harassed by the neighbouring barbarians, had already an
importance and prosperity which presaged its future destinies.[338]
Foreigners, resorting to it from all parts, had introduced a degree of
licentiousness which became proverbial.[339] Its commerce was, above
all, nourished by the ships of Athens, which went there to fetch the
wheat of Tauris and the fish of the Euxine.[340] When Athens, in her
decline, became a prey to anarchy, Byzantium, where arts and letters
flourished, served as a refuge to her exiles.


[Sidenote: Asia Minor.]

IX. Asia Minor comprised a great number of provinces, of which several
became, after the dismemberment of the empire of Alexander, independent
states. Of these, the principal formed into four groups, composing so
many kingdoms, namely, Pontus, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Pergamus. We
must except from them some Greek cities on the coast, which kept their
autonomy or were placed under the sovereignty of Rhodes. Their extent
and limits varied often until the time of the Roman conquest, and
several of them passed from one domination to another. All these
kingdoms participated in different degrees in the prosperity of
Macedonia.

“Asia,” says Cicero, “is so rich and fertile, that the fecundity of its
plains, the variety of its products, the extent of its pastures, the
multiplicity of the objects of commerce exported from it, give it an
incontestible superiority over all other countries of the earth.[341]”

The wealth of Asia Minor appears from the amount of impositions paid by
it to the different Roman generals. Without speaking of the spoils
carried away by Scipio, in his campaign against Antiochus, and by
Manlius Volso in 565, Sylla, and afterwards Lucullus and Pompey, each
drew from this country about 20,000 talents,[342] besides an equal sum
distributed by them to their soldiers: which gives the enormous total of
nearly seven hundred millions of francs [or twenty-eight millions
sterling], received in a period of twenty-five years.


[Sidenote: Kingdom of Pontus.]

X. The most northern of the four groups named above formed a great part
of the kingdom of Pontus. This province, the ancient Cappadocia Pontica,
formerly a Persian satrapy, reduced to subjection by Alexander and his
successor, recovered itself after the battle of Ipsus (453). Mithridates
III. enlarged his territory by adding to it Paphlagonia, and afterwards
Sinope and Galatia. Pontus soon extended from Colchis on the north-east
to Lesser Armenia on the south-east, and had Bithynia for its boundary
on the west. Thus, touching upon the Caucasus, and master of the Pontus
Euxinus, this kingdom, composed of divers peoples, presented, under
varied climates, a variety of different productions. It received wines
and oils from the Ægean Sea, and wheat from the Bosphorus; it exported
salt fish in great quantity,[343] dolphin oil,[344] and, as produce of
the interior, the wools of the Gadilonitis,[345] the fleeces of Ancyra,
the horses of Armenia, Media, and Paphlagonia,[346] the iron of the
Chalybes, a population of miners to the south of Trapezus, already
celebrated in the time of Homer, and mentioned by Xenophon.[347] There
also were found mines of silver, abandoned in the time of Strabo,[348]
but which have been re-opened in modern times. Important ports on the
Black Sea facilitated the exportation of these products. It was at
Sinope that Lucullus found a part of the treasures which he displayed at
his triumph, and which gives us a lofty idea of the kingdom of
Mithridates.[349] An object of admiration at Sinope was the statue of
Autolycus, one of the protecting heroes of the town, the work of the
statuary Sthenis.[350]

Trapezus (_Trebizonde_), which before the time of Mithridates the Great
preserved a sort of autonomy under the kings of Pontus, had an extensive
commerce; which was the case also with another Greek colony, Amisus
(_Samsoun_),[351] regarded in the time of Lucullus as one of the most
flourishing and richest towns in the country.[352] In the interior,
Amasia, which became afterwards one of the great fortresses of Asia
Minor, and the metropolis of Pontus, had already probably, at the time
of the Punic wars, a certain renown. Cabira, called afterwards
_Sebaste_, and then Neocæsarea, the central point of the resistance of
Mithridates the Great to Lucullus, owed its ancient celebrity to its
magnificent Temple of the Moon. From the country of Cabira, there was,
according to the statement of Lucullus,[353] only the distance of a few
days’ march into Armenia, a country the riches of which may be estimated
by the treasures gathered by Tigranes.[354]

We can hence understand how Mithridates the Great was able, two
centuries later, to oppose the Romans with considerable armies and
fleets. He possessed in the Black Sea 400 ships,[355] and his army
amounted to 250,000 men and 40,000 horse.[356] He received, it is true,
succours from Armenia and Scythia, from the Palus Mæotis, and even from
Thrace.


[Sidenote: Bithynia.]

XI. Bithynia, a province of Asia Minor, comprised between the Propontis,
the Sangarius, and Paphlagonia, formed a kingdom, which, at the
beginning of the sixth century of Rome, was adjacent to Pontus, and
comprised several parts of the provinces contiguous to Mysia and
Phrygia. In it were found several towns, the commerce of which rivalled
that of the maritime towns of Pontus, and especially Nicæa and
Nicomedia. This last, founded in 475 by Nicomedes I., took a rapid
extension.[357] Heraclea Pontica, a Milesian colony situated between the
Sangarius and the Parthenius, preserved its extensive commerce, and an
independence which Mithridates the Great himself could not entirely
destroy; it possessed a vast port, safe and skilfully disposed, which
sheltered a numerous fleet.[358] The power of the Bithynians was not
insignificant, since they sent into the field, in the war of Nicomedes
against Mithridates, 56,000 men.[359] If the traffic was considerable on
the coasts of Bithynia, thanks to the Greek colonies, the interior was
not less prosperous by its agriculture, and Bithynia was still, in the
time of Strabo, renowned for its herds.[360]

One of the provinces of Bithynia fell into the hands of the Gauls
(A.U.C. 478). Three peoples of Celtic origin shared it, and exercised in
it a sort of feudal dominion. It was called Galatia from the name of the
conquerors. Its places of commerce were: Ancyra, the point of arrival
of the caravans coming from Asia, and Pessinus, one of the chief seats
of the old Phrygian worship, where pilgrims repaired in great number to
adore Cybele.[361] The population of Galatia was certainly rather
considerable, since in the famous campaign of Cneius Manlius Volso,[362]
in 565, the Galatians lost 40,000 men. The two tribes united of the
Tectosagi and Trocmi raised at that period, in spite of many defeats, an
army of 50,000 foot and 10,000 horse.[363]


[Sidenote: Cappadocia.]

XII. To the east of Galatia, Cappadocia comprised between the Halys and
Armenia, distant from the sea, and crossed by numerous chains of
mountains, formed a kingdom which escaped the conquests of Alexander,
and which, a few years after his death, opposed Perdiccas with an army
of 30,000 footmen and 15,000 horsemen.[364] In the time of Strabo, wheat
and cattle formed the riches of this country.[365] In 566, King
Ariarathes paid 600 talents for the alliance of the Romans.[366] Mazaca
(afterwards _Cæsarea_), capital of Cappadocia, a town of an entirely
Asiatic origin, had been, from a very early period, renowned for its
pastures.[367]


[Sidenote: Kingdom of Pergamus.]

XIII. The western part of Asia Minor is better known. It had seen, after
the battle of Ipsus, the formation of the kingdom of Pergamus, which,
thanks to the interested liberality of the Romans towards Eumenes II.,
increased continually until the moment when it fell under their
sovereignty. To this kingdom belonged Mysia, the two Phrygias, Lycaonia,
and Lydia. This last province, crossed by the Pactolus, had for its
capital Ephesus, the metropolis of the Ionian confederation, at the same
time the mart of the commerce of Asia Minor and one of the localities
where the fine arts were cultivated with most distinction. This town had
two ports: one penetrated into the heart of the town, while the other
formed a basin in the very middle of the public market.[368] The theatre
of Ephesus, the largest ever built, was 660 feet in diameter, and was
capable of holding 60,000 spectators. The most celebrated artists,
Scopas, Praxiteles, etc., worked at Ephesus upon the great Temple of
Diana. This monument, the building of which lasted two hundred and
twenty years, was surrounded by 128 columns, each 60 feet high,
presented by so many kings. Pergamus, the capital of the kingdom, passed
for one of the finest cities in Asia, _longe clarissimum Asiæ Pergamum_,
says Pliny;[369] the port of Elæa contained maritime arsenals, and could
arm numerous vessels.[370] The acropolis of Pergamus, an inaccessible
citadel, defended by two torrents, was the residence of the Attalides;
these princes, zealous protectors of the sciences and arts, had founded
in their capital a library of 200,000 volumes.[371] Pergamus carried on
a vast traffic; its cereals were exported in great quantities to most
places in Greece.[372] Cyzicus, situated on an island of the Propontis,
with two closed ports forming a station for about two hundred
ships,[373] rivalled the richest cities of Asia. Like Adramyttium, it
carried on a great commerce in perfumery,[374] it worked the
inexhaustible marble-quarries of the island of Proconnesus,[375] and its
commercial relations were so extensive that its gold coins were current
in all the Asiatic factories.[376] The town of Abydos possessed gold
mines.[377] The wheat of Assus was reputed the best in the world, and
was reserved for the table of the kings of Persia.[378]

We may estimate the population and resources of this part of Asia from
the armies and fleets which the kings had at their command at the time
of the conquest of Greece by the Romans. In 555, Attalus II., and, ten
years later, Eumenes II., sent them numerous galleys of five ranks of
oars.[379] The land forces of the kings of Pergamus were much less
considerable.[380] Their direct authority did not extend over a great
territory, yet they had many tributary towns; hence their great wealth
and small army. The Romans drew from this country, now nearly barren and
unpeopled, immense contributions both in gold and wheat.[381] The
magnificence of the triumph of Manlius and the reflections of Livy,
compared with the testimony of Herodotus, reveal all the splendour of
the kingdom of Pergamus. It was after the war against Antiochus and the
expedition of Manlius that extravagance began to display itself at
Rome.[382] Soldiers and generals enriched themselves prodigiously in
Asia.[383]

The ancient colonies of Ionia and Æolis, such as Clazomenæ, Colophon,
and many others, which were dependent for the most part on the kingdom
of Pergamus, were fallen from their ancient grandeur. Smyrna, rebuilt by
Alexander, was still an object of admiration for the beauty of its
monuments. The exportation of wines, as celebrated on the coast of Ionia
as in the neighbouring islands, formed alone an important support of the
commerce of the ports of the Ægean Sea.

The treasures of the temple of Samothrace were so considerable, that we
are induced to mention here a circumstance relating to this little
island, though distant from Asia, and near the coast of Thrace: Sylla’s
soldiers took in the sanctuary the Cabiri, an ornament of the value of
1,000 talents (5,820,000 francs [£232,800]).[384]


[Sidenote: Caria, Lycia, and Cilicia.]

XIV. On the southern coast of Asia Minor, some towns still sustained the
rank they had attained one or two centuries before. The capital of Caria
was Halicarnassus, a very strong town, defended by two citadels,[385]
and celebrated for one of the finest works of Greek art, the
_Mausoleum_. In spite of the extraordinary fertility of the country, the
Carians were accustomed, like the people of Crete, to engage as
mercenaries in the Greek armies.[386] On their territory stood the
Ionian town of Miletus, with its four ports.[387] The Milesians alone
had civilised the shores of the Black Sea by the foundation of about
eighty colonies.[388]

In turn independent, or placed under foreign dominion, Lycia, a province
comprised between Caria and Cilicia, possessed some rich commercial
towns. One especially, renowned for its ancient oracle of Apollo, no
less celebrated than that of Delphi, was remarkable for its spacious
port;[389] this was Patara, which was large enough to contain the whole
fleet of Antiochus, burnt by Fabius in 565.[390] Xanthus, the largest
town of the province, to which place ships ascended, only lost its
importance after having been pillaged by Brutus.[391] Its riches had at
an earlier period drawn upon it the same fate from the Persians.[392]
Under the Roman dominion, Lycia beheld its population decline gradually;
and of the seventy towns which it had possessed, no more than thirty-six
remained in the eighth century of Rome.[393]

More to the east, the coasts of Cilicia were less favoured; subjugated
in turn by the Macedonians, Egyptians, and Syrians, they had become
receptacles of pirates, who were encouraged by the kings of Egypt in
their hostility to the Seleucidæ.[394] From the heights of the mountains
which cross a part of the province, robbers descended to plunder the
fertile plains situated on the eastern side (_Cilicia Campestris_).[395]
Still, the part watered by the Cydnus and the Pyramus was more
prosperous, owing to the manufacture of coarse linen and to the export
of saffron. There stood ancient Tarsus, formerly the residence of a
satrap, the commerce of which had sprung up along with that of
Tyre;[396] and Soli, on which Alexander levied an imposition of a
hundred talents as a punishment for its fidelity to the Persians,[397]
and which, by its maritime position, excited the envy of the
Rhodians.[398] These towns and other ports entered, after the battle of
Ipsus, into the great commercial movement of which the provinces of
Syria became the seat.


[Sidenote: Syria.]

XV. By the foundation of the empire of the Seleucidæ, Greek civilisation
was carried into the interior of Asia, where the immobility of Eastern
society was succeeded by the activity of Western life. Greek letters and
arts flourished from the Sea of Phœnicia to the banks of the
Euphrates. Numerous towns were built in Syria and Assyria, with all the
richness and elegance of the edifices of Greece;[399] some were almost
in ruins in the time of Pliny.[400] Seleucia, founded by Seleucus
Nicator, at the mouth of the Orontes, and which received, with five
other towns built by the same monarch, the name of the head of the
Græco-Syrian dynasty, became a greatly frequented port. Antioch, built
on the same river, rivalled the finest towns of Egypt and Greece by the
number of its edifices, the extent of its places, and the beauty of its
temples and statues.[401] Its walls, built by the architect Xenæos,
passed for a wonder, and in the Middle Ages their ruins excited the
admiration of travellers.[402] Antioch consisted of four quarters,
having each its own enclosure;[403] and the common enclosure which
surrounded them all appears to have embraced an extent of six leagues in
circumference. Not far from the town was the delightful abode of Daphne,
where the wood, consecrated to Apollo and Diana, was an object of public
veneration, and the place where sumptuous festivals were
celebrated.[404] Apamea was renowned for its pastures. Seleucus had
formed there a stud of 30,000 mares, 300 stallions, and 500
elephants.[405] The Temple of the Sun at Heliopolis (now _Baalbek_) was
the most colossal work of architecture that had ever existed.[406]

The power of the empire of the Seleucidæ went on increasing until the
time when the Romans seized upon it. Extending from the Mediterranean to
the Oxus and Caucasus, this empire was composed of nearly all the
provinces of the ancient kingdom of the Persians, and included peoples
of different origins.[407] Media was fertile, and its capital, Ecbatana,
which Polybius represents as excelling in riches and the incredible
luxury of its palaces the other cities of Asia, had not yet been
despoiled by Antiochus III.;[408] Babylonia, once the seat of a powerful
empire, and Phœnicia, long the most commercial country in the world,
made part of Syria, and touched upon the frontiers of the Parthians.
Caravans, following a route which has remained the same during many
centuries, placed Syria in communication with Arabia,[409] whence came
ebony, ivory, perfumes, resins, and spices; the Syrian ports were the
intermediate marts for the merchants who proceeded as far as India,
where Seleucus I. went to conclude a treaty with Sandrocottus. The
merchandise of this country ascended the Euphrates as far as Thapsacus,
and thence it was exported to all the provinces.[410] Communications so
distant and multiplied explain the prosperity of the empire of the
Seleucidæ. Babylonia competed with Phrygia in embroidered tissues;
purple and the tissues of Tyre, the glass, goldsmiths’ work, and dyes of
Sidon, were exported far. Commerce had penetrated to the extremities of
Asia. Silk stuffs were sent from the frontiers of China to Caspiæ Portæ,
and thence conveyed by caravans at once towards the Tyrian Sea,
Mesopotamia, and Pontus.[411] Subsequently, the invasion of the
Parthians, by intercepting the routes, prevented the Greeks from
penetrating into the heart of Asia. Hence Seleucus Nicator formed the
project of opening a way of direct communication between Greece and
Bactriana, by constructing a canal from the Black Sea to the Caspian
Sea.[412] Mines of precious metals were rather rare in Syria; but there
was abundance of gold and silver, introduced by the Phœnicians, or
imported from Arabia or Central Asia. We may judge of the abundance of
money possessed by Seleucia, on the Tigris, by the amount of the
contribution which was extorted from it by Antiochus III. (a thousand
talents).[413] The sums which the Syrian monarchs engaged to pay to the
Romans were immense.[414] The soil gave produce equal in importance with
that of industry.[415] Susiana, one of the provinces of Persia which had
fallen under the dominion of the Seleucidæ, had so great a reputation
for its corn, that Egypt alone could compete with it.[416] Cœle-Syria
was, like the north of Mesopotamia, in repute for its cattle.[417]
Palestine furnished abundance of wheat, oil, and wine. The condition of
Syria was still so prosperous in the seventh century of Rome, that the
philosopher Posidonius represents its inhabitants as indulging in
continual festivals, and dividing their time between the labours of the
field, banquets, and the exercises of the gymnasium.[418] The festivals
of Antiochus IV., in the town of Daphne,[419] give a notion of the
extravagance displayed by the grandees of that country.

The military forces assembled at different epochs by the kings of Syria
enable us to estimate the population of their empire. In 537, at the
battle of Raphia, Antiochus had under his command 68,000 men;[420] in
564, at Magnesia, 62,000 infantry, and more than 12,000 horsemen.[421]
These armies, it is true, comprised auxiliaries of different nations.
The Jews of the district of Carmel alone could raise 40,000 men.[422]

The fleet was no less imposing. Phœnicia counted numerous ports and
well-stored arsenals; such were Aradus (_Ruad_), Berytus (_Beyrout_),
Tyre (_Sour_). This latter town raised itself gradually from its
decline. It was the same with Sidon (_Saïde_), which Antiochus III., in
his war with Ptolemy, did not venture to attack on account of its
soldiers, its stores, and its population.[423] Moreover, the greater
part of the Phœnician towns enjoyed, under the Seleucidæ, a certain
autonomy favourable to their industry. In Syria, Seleucia, which
Antiochus the Great recovered from the Egyptians, had become the first
port in the kingdom on the Mediterranean.[424] Laodicea carried on an
active commerce with Alexandria.[425] Masters of the coasts of Cilicia
and Pamphylia, the kings of Syria obtained from them great quantities of
timber for ship-building, which was floated down the rivers from the
mountains.[426] Thus uniting their vessels with those of the
Phœnicians, the Seleucidæ launched upon the Mediterranean
considerable armies.[427]

Distant commerce also employed numerous merchant vessels; the
Mediterranean, like the Euphrates, was furrowed by barques which brought
or carried merchandise of every description. Vessels sailing on the
Erythræan Sea were in communication, by means of canals, with the shores
of the Mediterranean. The great trade of Phœnicia with Spain and the
West had ceased, but the navigation of the Euphrates and the Tigris
replaced it for the transport of products, whether foreign or
fabricated in Syria itself, and sent into Asia Minor, Greece, or Egypt.
The empire of the Seleucidæ offered the spectacle of the ancient
civilisation and luxury of Nineveh and Babylon, transformed by the
genius of Greece.


[Sidenote: Egypt.]

XVI. Egypt, which Herodotus calls a present from the Nile, did not equal
in surface a quarter of the empire of the Seleucidæ, but it formed a
power much more compact. Its civilisation reached back more than three
thousand years. The sciences and arts already flourished there, when
Asia Minor, Greece, and Italy were still in a state of barbarism. The
fertility of the valley of the Nile had permitted a numerous population
to develop itself there to such a point, that under Amasis II.,
contemporary with Servius Tullius, twenty thousand cities were reckoned
in it.[428] The skilful administration of the first of the Lagides
increased considerably the resources of the country. Under Ptolemy II.,
the annual revenues amounted to 14,800 talents (86,150,800 francs
[£3,446,032]), and a million and a half of artabi[429] of wheat.[430]
Besides the Egyptian revenues, the taxes levied in the foreign
possessions reached the amount of about 10,000 talents a year.
Cœle-Syria, Phœnicia, and Judea, with the province of Samaria,
yielded annually to Ptolemy Euergetes 8,000 talents (46 millions and a
half [£1,860,000]).[431] A single feast cost Philadelphia 2,240 talents
(more than 13 millions [more than half a million sterling]).[432] The
sums accumulated in the treasury amounted to the sum, perhaps
exaggerated, of 740,000 talents (about 4 milliards 300 millions of
francs [172 millions sterling]).[433] In 527, Ptolemy Euergetes was
able, without diminishing his resources too much, to send to the
Rhodians 3,300 talents of silver, a thousand talents of copper, and ten
millions of measures of wheat.[434] The precious metals abounded in the
empire of the Pharaohs, as is attested by the traces of mining
operations now exhausted, and by the multitude of objects in gold
contained in their tombs. Masters for some time of the Libanus, the
kings of Egypt obtained from it timber for ship-building. These riches
had accumulated especially at Alexandria, which became, after Carthage,
towards the commencement of the seventh century of Rome, the first
commercial city in the world.[435] It was fifteen miles in
circumference, had three spacious and commodious ports, which allowed
the largest ships to anchor along the quay.[436] There arrived the
merchandises of India, Arabia, Ethiopia, and of the coast of Africa;
some brought on the backs of camels, from Myos Hormos (to the north of
Cosseïr), and then transported down the Nile; others came by canals from
the bottom of the Gulf of Suez, or brought from the port of Berenice, on
the Red Sea.[437] The occupation of this sea by the Egyptians had put a
stop to the piracies of the Arabs,[438] and led to the establishment of
numerous factories. India furnished spices, muslins, and dyes; Ethiopia,
gold, ivory, and ebony; Arabia, perfumes.[439] All these products were
exchanged against those which came from the Pontus Euxinus and the
Western Sea. The native manufacture of printed and embroidered tissues,
and that of glass, assumed under the Ptolemies a new development. The
objects exhumed from the tombs of this period, the paintings with which
they are decorated, the allusions contained in the hieroglyphic texts
and Greek papyrus, prove that the most varied descriptions of industry
were exercised in the kingdom of the Pharaohs, and had attained a high
degree of perfection. The excellence of the products and the delicacy of
the work prove the intelligence of the workmen. Under Ptolemy II., the
army was composed of 200,000 footmen, 40,000 cavalry, 300 elephants, and
200 chariots; the arsenals were capable of furnishing arms for 300,000
men.[440] The Egyptian fleet, properly so called, consisted of a
hundred and twelve vessels of the first class (from five to thirty
ranges of oars), and two hundred and twenty-four of the second class,
together with light craft; the king had, besides these, more than four
thousand ships in the ports placed in subjection to him.[441] It was
especially after Alexander that the Egyptian navy became greatly
extended.


[Sidenote: Cyrenaica.]

XVII. Separating Egypt from the possessions of Carthage, Cyrenaica (_the
regency of Tripoli_), formerly colonised by the Greeks and independent,
had fallen into the hands of the first of the Ptolemies. It possessed
commercial and rich towns, and fertile plains; its cultivation extended
even into the mountains;[442] wine, oil, dates, saffron and different
plants, such as the silphium (_laserpitium_),[443] were the object of
considerable traffic.[444] The horses of Cyrenaica, which had all the
lightness of the Arabian horses, were objects of research even in
Greece,[445] and the natives of Cyrene could make no more handsome
present to Alexander than to send him three hundred of their
coursers.[446] Nevertheless, political revolutions had already struck at
the ancient prosperity of the country,[447] which previously formed, by
its navigation, its commerce, and its arts, probably the finest of the
colonies founded by the Greeks.


[Sidenote: Cyprus.]

XVIII. The numerous islands of the Mediterranean enjoyed equal
prosperity. Cyprus, colonised by the Phœnicians, and subsequently by
the Greeks, passing afterwards under the dominion of the Egyptians, had
a population which preserved, from its native country, the love of
commerce and distant voyages. Almost all its towns were situated on the
sea-coast, and furnished with excellent ports. Ptolemy Soter maintained
in it an army of 30,000 Egyptians.[448] No country was richer in timber.
Its fertility passed for being superior to that of Egypt.[449] To its
agricultural produce were added precious stones, mines of copper worked
from an early period,[450] and so rich, that this metal took its name
from the island itself (_Cuprum_). In Cyprus were seen numerous
sanctuaries, and especially the temple of Venus at Paphos, which
contained a hundred altars.[451]


[Sidenote: Crete.]

XIX. Crete, peopled by different races, had attained even in the heroic
age a great celebrity; Homer sang its hundred cities; but during several
centuries it had been on the decline. Without commerce, without a
regular navy, without agriculture, it possessed little else than its
fruits and woods, and the sterility which characterises it now had
already commenced. Nevertheless, there is every reason to believe that
at the time of the Roman conquest, the island was still well
peopled.[452] Devoted to piracy,[453] and reduced to sell their
services, the Cretans, celebrated as archers, fought as mercenaries in
the armies of Syria, Macedonia, and Egypt.[454]


[Sidenote: Rhodes.]

XX. If Crete was in decline, Rhodes, on the contrary, was extending its
commerce, which took gradually the place of that of the maritime towns
of Ionia and Caria. Already inhabited, in the time of Homer, by a
numerous population, and containing three important towns, Lindos,
Ialysus, and Camirus,[455] the isle was, in the fifth century of Rome,
the first maritime power after Carthage. The town of Rhodes, built
during the war of the Peloponnesus (346), had, like the Punic city, two
ports, one for merchant vessels, the other for ships of war. The right
of anchorage produced a revenue of a million of drachmas a year.[456]
The Rhodians had founded colonies on different points of the
Mediterranean shore,[457] and entertained friendly relations with a
great number of towns from which they received more than once succours
and presents.[458] They possessed upon the neighbouring Asiatic
continent tributary towns, such as Caunus and Stratonicea, which paid
them 120 talents (700,000 francs [£28,000]). The navigation of the
Bosphorus, of which they strove to maintain the passage free, soon
belonged to them almost exclusively.[459] All the maritime commerce from
the Nile to the Palus Mæotis thus fell into their hands. Laden with
slaves, cattle, honey, wax, and salt meats,[460] their ships went to
fetch on the coast of the Cimmerian Bosphorus (_Sea of Azof_) the wheat
then very celebrated,[461] and to carry wines and oils to the northern
coast of Asia Minor. By means of its fleets, though its land army was
composed wholly of foreigners,[462] Rhodes several times made war with
success. She contended with Athens, especially from 397 to 399; she
resisted victoriously, in 450, Demetrius Poliorcetes, and owed her
safety to the respect of this prince for a magnificent painting of
Ialysus, the work of Protogenes.[463] During the campaigns of the Romans
in Macedonia and Asia, she furnished them with considerable fleets.[464]
Her naval force was maintained until the civil war which followed the
death of Cæsar, but was then annihilated.

The celebrity of Rhodes was no less great in arts and letters than in
commerce. After the reign of Alexander, it became the seat of a famous
school of sculpture and painting, from which issued Protogenes and the
authors of the _Laocoon_ and the _Farnese Bull_. The town contained
three thousand statues,[465] and a hundred and six colossi, among others
the famous Statue of the Sun, one of the seven wonders of the world, a
hundred and five feet high, the cost of which had been three thousand
talents (17,400,000 francs [£696,000]).[466] The school of rhetoric at
Rhodes was frequented by students who repaired thither from all parts
of Greece, and Cæsar, as well as Cicero, went there to perfect
themselves in the art of oratory.

The other islands of the Ægean Sea had nearly all lost their political
importance, and their commercial life was absorbed by the new states of
Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Rhodes. It was not so with the Archipelago of
the Ionian Sea, the prosperity of which continued until the moment when
it fell into the power of the Romans. Corcyra, which received into its
port the Roman forces, owed to its fertility and favourable position an
extensive commerce. The rival of Corinth since the fourth century, she
became corrupted like Byzantium and Zacynthus (_Zante_), which
Agatharchides, towards 640, represents as grown effeminate by excess of
luxury.[467]


[Sidenote: Sardinia.]

XXI. The flourishing condition of Sardinia arose especially from the
colonies which Carthage had planted in it. The population of this island
rendered itself formidable to the Romans by its spirit of
independence.[468] From 541[469] to 580, 130,000 men were slain, taken,
or sold.[470] The number of these last was so considerable, that the
expression _Sardinians to sell_ (_Sardi venales_) became
proverbial.[471] Sardinia, which now counts not more than 544,000
inhabitants, then possessed at least a million. Its quantity of corn,
and numerous herds of cattle, made of this island the second granary of
Carthage.[472] The avidity of the Romans soon exhausted it. Yet, in 552,
the harvests were still so abundant, that there were merchants who were
obliged to abandon the wheat to the sailors for the price of the
freight.[473] The working of the mines and the trade in wool of a
superior quality[474] occupied thousands of hands.


[Sidenote: Corsica.]

XXII. Corsica was much less populous. Diodorus Siculus gives it hardly
more than 30,000 inhabitants,[475] and Strabo represents them as
savages, and living in the mountains.[476] According to Pliny, however,
it had thirty towns.[477] Resin, wax, honey,[478] exported from
factories founded by the Etruscans and Phocæans on the coasts, were
almost the only products of the island.


[Sidenote: Sicily.]

XXIII. Sicily, called by the ancients the favourite abode of Ceres, owed
its name to the Sicani or Siculi, a race which had once peopled a part
of Italy; Phœnician colonies, and afterwards Greek colonies, had
established themselves in it. In 371, the Greeks occupied the eastern
part, about two-thirds of the island; the Carthaginians, the western
part. Sicily, on account of its prodigious fertility, was, as may be
supposed, coveted by both peoples; it was soon the same in regard to the
Romans, and, after the conquest, it became the granary of Italy.[479]
The orations of Cicero against Verres show the prodigious quantities of
wheat which it sent, and to what a great sum the tenths or taxes
amounted, which procured immense profits to the farmers of the
revenues.[480]

The towns which, under Roman rule, declined, were possessed of
considerable importance at the time of which we are speaking. The first
among them, Syracuse, the capital of Hiero’s kingdom, contained 600,000
souls; it was composed of six quarters, comprised in a circumference of
180 stadia (36 kilometres); it furnished, when it was conquered, a booty
equal to that of Carthage.[481] Other cities rivalled Syracuse in extent
and power. Agrigentum, in the time of the first Punic war, contained
50,000 soldiers;[482] it was one of the principal garrisons in
Sicily.[483] Panormus (_Palermo_), Drepana (_Trapani_), and Lilybæum
(_Marsala_), possessed arsenals, docks for ship-building, and vast
ports. The roadstead of Messina was capable of holding 600 vessels.[484]
Sicily is still the richest country in ancient monuments; our
admiration is excited by the ruins of twenty-one temples and of eleven
theatres, among others that of Taormina, which contained 40,000
spectators.[485]

       *       *       *       *       *

This concise description of the countries bordering on the
Mediterranean, two or three hundred years before our era, shows
sufficiently the state of prosperity of the different peoples who
inhabited them. The remembrance of such greatness inspires a very
natural wish, namely, that henceforth the jealousy of the great powers
may no longer prevent the East from shaking off the dust of twenty
centuries, and from being born again to life and civilisation!



CHAPTER V.

PUNIC WARS AND WARS OF MACEDONIA AND ASIA.

(From 488 to 621.)


[Sidenote: Comparison between Rome and Carthage.]

I. Rome, having extended her dominion to the southern extremity of
Italy, found herself in face of a power which, by the force of
circumstances, was to become her rival.

Carthage, situated on the part of the African coast nearest to Sicily,
was only separated from it by the channel of Malta, which divides the
great basin of the Mediterranean in two. She had, during more than two
centuries, concluded, from time to time, treaties with Rome, and, with a
want of foresight of the future, congratulated the Senate every time it
had gained great advantages over the Etruscans or the Samnites.

The superiority of Carthage at the beginning of the Punic wars was
evident; yet the constitution of the two cities might have led any one
to foresee which in the end must be the master. A powerful aristocracy
reigned in both; but at Rome the nobles, identified continually with the
people, set an example of patriotism and of all civic virtues, while at
Carthage the leading families, enriched by commerce, made effeminate by
an unbridled luxury, formed a selfish and greedy caste, distinct from
the rest of the citizens. At Rome, the sole motive of action was glory,
the principal occupation war, and the first duty military service. At
Carthage, everything was sacrificed to interest and commerce; and the
defence of the fatherland was, as an insupportable burden, abandoned to
mercenaries. Hence, after a defeat, at Carthage the army was recruited
with difficulty; at Rome it immediately recruited itself, because the
populace was subject to the recruitment. If the poverty of the treasury
caused the pay of the troops to be delayed, the Carthaginian soldiers
mutinied, and placed the State in danger; the Romans supported
privations and suffering without a murmur, out of mere love for their
country.

The Carthaginian religion made of the Divinity a jealous and malignant
power, which required to be appeased by horrible sacrifices or honoured
by shameful practices: hence manners depraved and cruel; at Rome, good
sense or the interest of the government moderated the brutality of
paganism, and maintained in religion the sentiments of morality.[486]

And, again, what a difference in their policies! Rome had subdued, by
force of arms, it is true, the people who surrounded her, but she had,
so to say, obtained pardon for her victories in offering to the
vanquished a greater country and a share in the rights of the
metropolis. Moreover, as the inhabitants of the peninsula were in
general of one and the same race, she had found it easy to assimilate
them to herself. Carthage, on the contrary, had remained a foreigner in
the midst of the natives of Africa, from whom she was separated by
origin, language, and manners. She had made her rule hateful to her
subjects and to her tributaries by the mercantile spirit of her agents,
and their habits of rapacity; hence frequent insurrections, repressed
with unexampled cruelty. Her distrust of her subjects had engaged her to
leave all the towns on her territory open, in order that none of them
might become a centre of support to a revolt. Thus two hundred towns
surrendered without resistance to Agathocles immediately he appeared in
Africa. Rome, on the contrary, surrounded her colonies with ramparts,
and the walls of Placentia, Spoletum, Casilinum, and Nola, contributed
to arrest the invasion of Hannibal.

The town of Romulus was at that time in all the vigour of youth, while
Carthage had reached that degree of corruption at which States are
incapable of supporting either the abuses which enervate them, or the
remedy by which they might be regenerated.

To Rome then belonged the future. On one hand, a people of soldiers,
restrained by discipline, religion, and purity of manners, animated with
the love of their country, surrounded by devoted allies; on the other, a
people of merchants with dissolute manners, unruly mercenaries, and
discontented subjects.


[Sidenote: First Punic War (490-513).]

II. These two powers, of equal ambition, but so opposite in spirit,
could not long remain in presence without disputing the command of the
rich basin of the Mediterranean. Sicily especially was destined to
excite their covetousness. The possession of that island was then shared
between Hiero, tyrant of Syracuse, the Carthaginians, and the
Mamertines. These last, descended from the old adventurers, mercenaries
of Agathocles, who came from Italy in 490 and settled at Messina,
proceeded to make war upon the Syracusans. They first sought the
assistance of the Carthaginians, and surrendered to them the acropolis
of Messina as the price of their protection; but soon, disgusted with
their too exacting allies, they sent to demand succour of Rome under the
name of a common nationality, for most of them called themselves
Italiots, and consequently allies of the Republic; some even were or
pretended to be Romans.[487]

The Senate hesitated; but public opinion carried the day, and, in spite
of the little interest inspired by the Mamertines, war was decided. A
body of troops, sent without delay to Messina, expelled the
Carthaginians. Soon after, a consular army crossed the Strait, defeated
first the Syracusans and then the Carthaginians, and effected a military
settlement in the island. Thus commenced the first Punic War.

Different circumstances favoured the Romans. The Carthaginians had made
themselves objects of hatred to the Sicilian Greeks. The towns still
independent, comparing the discipline of the legions with the excesses
of all kinds which had marked the progress of the mercenaries of
Agathocles, Pyrrhus, and the Carthaginian generals, received the consuls
as liberators. Hiero, master of Syracuse, the principal town in Sicily,
had no sooner experienced the power of the Roman armies than he foresaw
the result of the struggle, and declared for the strongest. His
alliance, maintained faithfully during fifty years, was of great utility
to the Republic.[488] With his support, the Romans, at the end of the
third year of the war, had obtained possession of Agrigentum and the
greater part of the towns of the interior; but the fleets of the
Carthaginians remained masters of the sea and of the fortresses on the
coast.

The Romans were deficient in ships of war.[489] They could, no doubt,
procure transport vessels, or, by their allies (_socii navales_), a few
triremes,[490] but they had none of those ships with five ranks of oars,
better calculated, by their weight and velocity, to sink the ships of
the enemy. An incomparable energy supplied in a short time the
insufficiency of the fleet: a hundred and twenty galleys were
constructed after the model of a Carthaginian quinquireme which had been
cast on the coast of Italy; and soldiers were exercised on land in the
handling of the oar.[491] At the end of two months, the crews were
embarked, and the Carthaginians were defeated at Mylæ (494), and three
years after at Tyndaris (497). These two sea-fights deprived Carthage of
the prestige of her maritime superiority.

Still the struggle continued on land without decisive results, when the
two rivals embraced the same resolution of making a final effort for the
mastery of the sea. Carthage fitted out three hundred and fifty decked
vessels; Rome, three hundred and thirty of equal force. In 498 the two
fleets met between Heraclea Minora and the Cape of Ecnomus, and, in a
memorable combat, in which 300,000 men[492] contended, the victory
remained with the Romans. The road to Africa was open, and M. Atilius
Regulus, inspired, no doubt, by the example of Agathocles, formed the
design of carrying the war thither. His first successes were so great,
that Carthage, in her terror, and to avoid the siege with which she was
threatened, was ready to renounce her possessions in Sicily. Regulus,
relying too much on the feebleness of the resistance he had hitherto
encountered, thought he could impose upon Carthage the hardest
conditions; but despair restored to the Africans all their energy, and
Xanthippus, a Greek adventurer, but good general, placed himself at the
head of the troops, defeated the consul, and almost totally destroyed
his army.

The Romans never desponded in their reverses; they carried the war
again into Sicily, and recovered Panormus, the head-quarters of the
Carthaginian army. For several years the fleets of the two countries
ravaged, one the coast of Africa, the other the Italian shores; in the
interior of Sicily the Romans had the advantage; on the coast, the
Carthaginians. Twice the fleets of the Republic were destroyed by
tempests or by the enemy, and these disasters led the Senate on two
occasions to suspend all naval warfare. The struggle remained
concentrated during six years in a corner of Sicily: the Romans occupied
Panormus; the Carthaginians, Lilybæum and Drepana. It might have been
prolonged indefinitely, if the Senate, in spite of the poverty of the
treasury, had not succeeded, by means of voluntary gifts, in equipping
another fleet of two hundred quinquiremes. Lutatius, who commanded it,
dispersed the enemy’s ships near the Ægates, and, master of the sea,
threatened to starve the Carthaginians. They sued for peace at the very
moment when a great warrior, Hamilcar, had just restored a prestige to
their arms. The fact is, that the enormity of her expenses and
sacrifices for the last twenty-four years had discouraged Carthage,
while at Rome, patriotism, insensible to material losses, maintained the
national energy without change. The Carthaginians, obliged to give up
all their establishments in Sicily, paid an indemnity of 2,200
talents.[493] From that time the whole island, with the exception of the
kingdom of Hiero, became tributary, and, for the first time, Rome had a
subject province.

If, in spite of this definitive success, there were momentary checks,
we must attribute them in great part to the continual changes in the
plans of campaign, which varied annually with the generals. Several
consuls, nevertheless, were wanting neither in skill nor perseverance,
and the Senate, always grateful, gave them worthy recompense for their
services. Some obtained the honours of the triumph; among others,
Duilius, who gained the first naval battle, and Lutatius, whose victory
decided peace. At Carthage, on the contrary, the best generals fell
victims to envy and ingratitude. Xanthippus, who vanquished Regulus, was
summarily removed through the jealousy of the nobles, whom he had
saved;[494] and Hamilcar, calumniated by a rival faction, did not
receive from his government the support necessary for the execution of
his great designs.

During this contest of twenty-three years, the war often experienced the
want of a skilful and stable direction; but the legions lost nothing of
their ancient valour, and they were even seen one day proceeding to
blows with the auxiliaries, who had disputed with them the possession of
the most dangerous post. We may cite also the intrepidity of the tribune
Calpurnius Flamma, who saved the legions shut up by Hamilcar in a
defile. He covered the retreat with three hundred men, and, found alive
under a heap of dead bodies, received from the consul a crown of
leaves--a modest reward, but sufficient then to inspire heroism. All
noble sentiments were raised to such a point as even to do justice to an
enemy. The consul, L. Cornelius, gave magnificent funeral rites to
Hanno, a Carthaginian general, who had died valiantly in fighting
against him.[495]

During the first Punic war, the Carthaginians had often threatened the
coasts of Italy, but never attempted a serious landing. They could find
no allies among the peoples recently subdued; neither the Samnites, nor
the Lucanians who had declared for Pyrrhus, nor the Greek towns in the
south of the Peninsula, showed any inclination to revolt. The Cisalpine
Gauls, lately so restless, and whom we shall soon see taking arms again,
remained motionless. The disturbances which broke out at the close of
the Punic war among the Salentini and Falisci were without importance,
and appear to have had no connection with the great struggle between
Rome and Carthage.[496]

This resistance to all attempts at insurrection proves that the
government of the Republic was equitable, and that it had given
satisfaction to the vanquished. No complaint was heard, even after great
disasters; and yet the calamities of war bore cruelly upon the
cultivators--incessantly obliged to quit their fields to fill up the
voids made in the legions. At home, the Senate had in its favour a great
prestige, and abroad it enjoyed a reputation of good faith which ensured
sincere alliances.

The first Punic war exercised a remarkable influence on manners. Until
then the Romans had not entertained continuous relations with the
Greeks. The conquest of Sicily rendered these relations numerous and
active, and whatever Hellenic civilisation contained, whether useful or
pernicious, made itself felt.

The religious ideas of the two peoples were different, although Roman
paganism had great affinity with the paganism of Greece. This had its
philosophers, its sophists, and its freethinkers. At Rome, nothing of
the sort; there, creeds were profound, simple, and sincere; and,
moreover, from a very remote period, the government had made religion
subordinate to politics, and had laboured to give it a direction
advantageous to the State.

The Greeks of Sicily introduced into Rome two sects of philosophy, the
germs of which became developed at a later period, and which had perhaps
more relation with the instincts of the initiated than with those of the
initiators. _Stoicism_ fortified the practice of the civic virtues, but
without modifying their ancient roughness; _Epicurism_, much more
extensively spread, soon flung the nation into the search after material
enjoyments. Both sects, by inspiring contempt for death, gave a terrible
power to the people who adopted them.

The war had exhausted the finances of Carthage. The mercenaries, whom
she could not pay, revolted in Africa and Sardinia at the same time.
They were only vanquished by the genius of Hamilcar. In Sardinia, the
excesses of the mutineers had caused an insurrection among the natives,
who drove them out of the country. The Romans did not let this
opportunity for intervention escape them; and, as before in the case of
the Mamertines, the Senate, according to all appearance, assumed as a
pretext that there were Italiots among the mercenaries in Sardinia. The
island was taken, and the conquerors imposed a new contribution on
Carthage for having captured some merchant vessels navigating in those
latitudes--a scandalous abuse of power, which Polybius loudly
condemns.[497] Reduced to impotency by the loss of their navy and the
revolt of their army, the Carthaginians submitted to the conditions of
the strongest. They had quitted Sicily without leaving any regrets; but
it was not the same with Sardinia; there their government and dominion
were popular, probably from the community of religion and the
Phœnician origin of some of the towns.[498] For a long time
afterwards, periodical rebellions testified to the affection of the
Sardinians for their old masters. Towards the same epoch, the Romans
took possession of Corsica, and, from 516 to 518, repulsed the Ligures
and the Gaulish tribes, with whom they had been at peace for forty-five
years.


[Sidenote: War of Illyria (525).]

III. While the Republic protected its northern frontiers against the
Gauls and Ligures, and combated the influence of Carthage in Sardinia
and Corsica, she undertook, against a small barbarous people, another
expedition, less difficult, it is true, but which was destined to have
immense consequences. The war of Illyria, in fact, was on the point of
opening to the Romans the roads to Greece and Asia, subjected to the
successors of Alexander, and where Greek civilisation was dominant. Now
become a great maritime power, Rome had henceforward among her
attributes the police of the seas. The inhabitants of the eastern coasts
of the Adriatic, addicted to piracy, were destructive to commerce.
Several times they had carried their depredations as far as Messenia,
and defeated Greek squadrons sent to repress their ravages.[499] These
pirates belonged to the Illyrian nation. The Greeks considered them as
barbarians, which meant foreigners to the Hellenic race; it is probable,
nevertheless, that they had a certain affinity with it. Inconvenient
allies of the kings of Macedonia, they often took arms either for or
against them; intrepid and fierce hordes, they were ready to sell their
services and blood to any one who would pay them, resembling, in this
respect, the Albanians of the present day, believed by some to be their
descendants driven into the mountains by the invasions of the
Slaves.[500]

The king of the Illyrians was a child, and his mother, Teuta, exercised
the regency. This fact alone reveals manners absolutely foreign to
Hellenic and Roman civilisation. A chieftain of Pharos (_Lesina_), named
Demetrius, in the pay of Teuta, occupied as a fief the island of Corcyra
Nigra (now _Curzola_), and exercised the functions of prime minister.
The Romans had no difficulty in gaining him; moreover, the Illyrians
furnished a legitimate cause of war by assassinating an ambassador of
the Republic.[501] The Senate immediately dispatched an army and a fleet
to reduce them (525). Demetrius surrendered his island, which served as
a basis against Apollonia, Dyrrhachium, Nutria, and a great part of the
coast. After a resistance of some months, the Illyrians submitted,
entered into an engagement to renounce piracy, surrendered several
ports, and agreed to choose Demetrius, the ally of the Romans, for the
guardian of their king.[502]

By this expedition, the Republic gained great popularity throughout
Greece; the Athenians and the Achaian league especially were lavish of
thanks, and began from that time to consider the Romans as their
protectors against their dangerous neighbours, the kings of Macedonia.
As to the Illyrians, the lesson they had received was not sufficient to
correct them of their piratical habits. Ten years later another
expedition was sent to chastise the Istrians at the head of the
Adriatic,[503] and soon afterwards the disobedience of Demetrius to the
orders of the Senate brought war again upon Illyria. He was compelled to
take refuge with Philip of Macedon, while the young king became the ally
or subject of the Republic.[504] In the mean time a new war attracted
the attention of the Romans.


[Sidenote: Invasion of the Cisalpines (528).]

IV. The idea of the Senate was evidently to push its domination towards
the north of Italy, and thus to preserve it from the invasion of the
Gauls. In 522, at the proposal of the tribune Flaminius, the Senones had
been expelled from Picenum, and their lands, declared public domain,
were distributed among the plebeians. This measure, a presage to the
neighbouring Gaulish tribes of the lot reserved for them, excited among
them great uneasiness, and they began to prepare for a formidable
invasion. In 528, they called from the other side of the Alps a mass of
barbarians of the warlike race of the Gesatæ.[505] The terror at Rome
was great. The same interests animated the peoples of Italy, and the
fear of a danger equally threatening for all began to inspire them with
the same spirit.[506] They rushed to arms; an army of 150,000 infantry
and 6,000 cavalry was sent into the field, and the census of men capable
of bearing arms amounted to nearly 800,000. The enumeration of the
contingents of each country[507] furnishes valuable information on the
general population of Italy, which appears, at this period, to have
been, without reckoning the slaves, about the same as at the present
day, yet with this difference, that the men capable of bearing arms were
then in a much greater proportion.[508] These documents also give rise
to the remark that the Samnites, only forty years recovered from the
disasters of their sanguinary struggles, could still furnish 77,000 men.

The Gauls penetrated to the centre of Tuscany, and at Fesulæ defeated a
Roman army; but, intimidated by the unexpected arrival of the consul L.
Æmilius coming from Rimini, they retired, when, meeting the other
consul, Caius Atilius, who, returning from Sardinia, had landed at Pisa,
they were enclosed between two armies, and were annihilated. In the
following year, the Gaulish tribes, successively driven back to the
other side of the Po, were defeated again on the banks of the Adda; the
coalition of the Cisalpine peoples was dissolved, without leading to the
complete submission of the country. The colonies of Cremona and
Placentia contributed, nevertheless, to hold it in check.

While the north of Italy seemed sufficient to absorb the attention of
the Romans, great events were passing in Spain.


[Sidenote: Second Punic War (536-552).]

V. Carthage, humiliated, had lost the empire of the sea, with Sicily and
Sardinia. Rome, on the contrary, had strengthened herself by her
conquests in the Mediterranean, in Illyria, and in the Cisalpine.
Suddenly the scene changes: the dangers which threatened the African
town disappear, Carthage rises from her abasement, and Rome, which had
lately been able to count 800,000 men in condition to carry arms, will
soon tremble for her own existence. A change so unforeseen is brought
about by the mere appearance in the ranks of the Carthaginian army of a
man of genius, Hannibal.

His father, Hamilcar, chief of the powerful faction of the Barcas, had
saved Carthage by suppressing the insurrection of the mercenaries.
Charged afterwards with the war in Spain, he had vanquished the most
warlike peoples of that country, and formed in silence a formidable
array. Having discovered early the merit of a young man named Hasdrubal,
he took him into his favour with the intention of making him his
successor. In taking him for his son-in-law, he entrusted to him the
education of Hannibal, on whom rested his dearest hopes. Hamilcar having
been slain in 526, Hasdrubal had taken his place at the head of the
army.

The progress of the Carthaginians in Spain, and the state of their
forces in that country, had alarmed the Senate, which, in 526, obliged
the government of Carthage to subscribe to a new treaty, prohibiting the
Punic army from passing the Ebro, and attacking the allies of the
Republic.[509] This last article referred to the Saguntines, who had
already had some disputes with the Carthaginians. The Romans affected
not to consider them as aborigines, and founded their plea on a legend
which represented this people as a colony from Ardea, contemporary with
the Trojan war.[510] By a similar conduct Rome created allies in Spain
to watch her old adversaries, and this time, as in the case of the
Mamertines, she showed an interested sympathy in favour of a weak nation
exposed to frequent collisions with the Carthaginians. Hasdrubal had
received the order to carry into execution the new treaty; but he was
assassinated by a Gaul, in 534, and the army, without waiting for orders
from Carthage, chose by acclamation for its chief Hannibal, then
twenty-nine years of age. In spite of the rival factions, this choice
was ratified, and perhaps any hesitation on the part of the council in
Carthage would only have led to the revolt of the troops. The party of
the Barcas carried the question against the government, and confirmed
the power of the young general. Adored by the soldiers, who saw in him
their own pupil, Hannibal exercised over them an absolute authority, and
believed that with their old band he could venture upon anything.

The Saguntines were at war with the Turbuletæ,[511] allies or subjects
of Carthage. In contempt of the treaty of 256, Hannibal laid siege to
Saguntum, and took it after a siege of several months. He pretended
that, in attacking his own allies, the Saguntines had been the
aggressors. The people of Saguntum hastened to implore the succour of
Rome. The Senate confined itself to despatching commissioners, some to
Hannibal, who gave them no attention, and others to Carthage, where they
arrived only when Saguntum had ceased to exist. An immense booty, sent
by the conqueror, had silenced the faction opposed to the Barcas, and
the people, as well as the soldiers, elevated by success, breathed
nothing but war. The Roman ambassadors, sent to require indemnities, and
even to demand the head of Hannibal, were ill received, and returned
declaring hostilities unavoidable.

Rome prepared for war with her usual firmness and energy. One of the
consuls was ordered to pass into Sicily, and thence into Africa; the
other to lead an army by sea to Spain, and expel the Carthaginians from
that country. But, without waiting the issue of negotiations, Hannibal
was in full march to transfer the war into Italy. Sometimes treating
with the Celtiberian or Gaulish hordes to obtain a passage through their
territory, sometimes intimidating them by his arms, he had reached the
banks of the Rhone, when the consul charged with the conquest of Spain,
P. Cornelius Scipio, landing at the eastern mouth of that river, learnt
that Hannibal had already entered the Alps. He then leaves his army to
his brother Cneius, returns promptly to Pisa, places himself at the head
of the troops destined to fight the Boii, crosses the Po with them,
hoping by this rapid movement to surprise the Carthaginian general at
the moment when, fatigued and weakened, he entered the plains of Italy.

The two armies met on the banks of the Tessino (536). Scipio, defeated
and wounded, fell back on the colony of Placentia. Rejoined in the
neighbourhood of that town by his colleague Tib. Sempronius Longus, he
again, on the Trebia, offered battle to the Carthaginians. A brilliant
victory placed Hannibal in possession of a great part of Liguria and
Cisalpine Gaul, the warlike hordes of which received him with enthusiasm
and reinforced his army, reduced, after the passage of the mountains, to
less than 30,000 men. Flattered by the reception of the Gauls, the
Carthaginian general tried also to gain the Italiots, and, announcing
himself as the liberator of oppressed peoples, he took care, after the
victory, to set at liberty all the prisoners taken from the allies. He
hoped that these liberated captives would become for him useful
emissaries. In the spring of 537 he entered Etruria, crossed the marshes
of the Val di Chiana, and, drawing the Roman army to the neighbourhood
of the Lake Trasimenus, into an unfavourable locality, destroyed it
almost totally.

The terror was great at Rome; yet the conqueror, after devastating
Etruria, and attacking Spoletum in vain, crossed the Apennines, threw
himself into Umbria and Picenum, and thence directed his march through
Samnium towards the coast of Apulia. In fact, having reached the centre
of Italy, deprived of all communication with the mother country, without
the engines necessary for a siege, with no assured line of retreat,
having behind him the army of Sempronius, what must Hannibal do?--Place
the Apennines between himself and Rome, draw nearer to the populations
more disposed in his favour, and then, by the conquest of the southern
provinces, establish a solid basis of operation, in direct communication
with Carthage. In spite of the victory of Trasimenus, his position was
critical, for, except the Cisalpine Gauls, all the Italiot peoples
remained faithful to Rome, and so far no one had come to increase his
army.[512] Thus Hannibal remained several months between Casilinum and
Arpi, where Fabius, by his skilful movements, would have succeeded in
starving the Carthaginian army, if the term of his command had not
expired. Moreover, the popular party, irritated at a system of
temporising which it accused of cowardice, raised to the consulship, as
the colleague of Æmilius Paulus, Varro, a man of no capacity. Obliged to
remain in Apulia, to procure subsistence for his troops, Hannibal, being
attacked imprudently, entirely defeated, near Cannæ, two consular armies
composed of eight legions and of an equal number of allies, amounting to
87,000 men (538).[513] One of the consuls perished, the other escaped,
followed only by a few horsemen. 40,000 Romans had been killed or taken,
and Hannibal sent to Carthage a bushel of gold rings taken from the
fingers of knights who lay on the field of battle.[514] From that moment
part of Samnium, Apulia, Lucania, and Bruttium declared for the
Carthaginians, while the Greek towns of the south of the peninsula
remained favourable to the Romans.[515] About the same time, as an
increase of ill fortune, L. Postumus, sent against the Gauls, was
defeated, and his army cut to pieces.

The Romans always showed themselves admirable in adversity; and thus the
Senate, by a skilful policy, went to meet the consul Varro, and thank
him for not having despaired of the Republic; it would, however, no
longer employ the troops which had retreated from the battle, but sent
them into Sicily with a prohibition to return into Italy until the enemy
had been driven out of it. They refused to ransom the prisoners in
Hannibal’s hands. The fatherland, they said, had no need of men who
allowed themselves to be taken arms in hand.[516] This reply made people
report at Rome that the man who possessed power was treated very
differently from the humble citizen.[517]

The idea of asking for peace presented itself to nobody. Each rivalled
the other in sacrifices and devotion. New legions were raised, and there
were enrolled 8,000 slaves, who were restored to freedom after the first
combat.[518] The treasury being empty, all the private fortunes were
brought to its aid. The proprietors of slaves taken for the army, the
farmers of the revenue charged with the furnishing of provisions,
consented to be repaid only at the end of the war. Everybody, according
to his means, maintained at his own expense freedmen to serve on the
galleys. After the example of the Senate, widows and minors carried
their gold and silver to the public treasury. It was forbidden for
anybody to keep at home either jewels, plate, silver or copper money,
above a certain value, and, by the law Oppia, even the toilette of the
ladies was limited.[519] Lastly, the duration of family mourning for
relatives slain before the enemy was restricted to thirty days.[520]

After the victory of Cannæ it would have been more easy for Hannibal to
march straight upon Rome than after Trasimenus; yet, since so great a
captain did not think this possible to attempt, it is not uninteresting
to inquire into his motives. In the first place, his principal force was
in Numidian cavalry, which would have been useless in a siege;[521]
then, he had generally the inferiority in attacking fortresses. Thus,
after Trebia, he could not reduce Placentia;[522] after Trasimenus, he
failed before Spoletum; three times he marched upon Naples, without
venturing to attack it; later still, he was obliged to abandon the
sieges of Nola, Cumæ, and Casilinum.[523] What, then, could be more
natural than his hesitation to attack Rome, defended by a numerous
population, accustomed to the use of arms?

The most striking proof of the genius of Hannibal is the fact of his
having remained sixteen years in Italy, left almost to his own forces,
reduced to the necessity of recruiting his army solely among his new
allies, and of subsisting at their expense, ill seconded by the Senate
of his own country, having always to face at least two consular armies,
and, lastly, shut up in the peninsula by the Roman fleets, which guarded
its coasts to intercept reinforcements from Carthage. His constant
thought, therefore, was to make himself master of some important points
of the coast in order to open a communication with Africa. After Cannæ,
he occupies Capua, seeks to gain the sea by Naples,[524] Cumæ, Puteoli;
unable to effect these objects, he seizes upon Arpi and Salapia, on the
eastern coast, where he hopes to meet the ambassadors of the King of
Macedonia. He next makes Bruttium his base of operation, and his
attempts are directed against the maritime places, now against
Brundusium and Tarentum, now against Locri and Rhegium.

All the defeats sustained by the generals of the Republic had been
caused, first, by the superiority of the Numidian cavalry, and the
inferiority of the hastily levied Latin soldiers,[525] opposed to old
veteran troops; and, next, by excessive rashness in face of an able
captain, who drew his adversaries to the position which he had chosen.
Nevertheless, Hannibal, considerably weakened by his victories,
exclaimed, after Cannæ, as Pyrrhus had done after Heraclea, that such
another success would be his ruin.[526] Q. Fabius Maximus, recalled to
power (539), continued a system of methodical war; while Marcellus, his
colleague, bolder,[527] assumed the offensive, and arrested the progress
of the enemy, by obliging him to shut himself up in a trapezium, formed
on the north by Capua and Arpi, on the south by Rhegium and Tarentum. In
543 the war was entirely concentrated round two places; the citadel of
Tarentum, blockaded by the Carthaginians, and Capua, besieged by the two
consuls. These had surrounded themselves with lines of countervallation
against the place, and of circumvallation against the attacks from
without. Hannibal, having failed in his attempt to force these latter,
marched upon Rome, in the hope of causing the siege of Capua to be
raised, and by separating the two consular armies, defeating them one
after the other in the plain country. Having arrived under the walls of
the capital, and foreseeing too many difficulties in the way of making
himself master of so large a town, he abandoned his plan of attack, and
fell back to the environs of Rhegium. His abode there was prolonged
during several years, with alternations of reverse and success, in the
south of Italy, the populations of which were favourable to him;
avoiding engagements, keeping near the sea, and not going beyond the
southern extremity of the territory of Samnium.

In 547, a great army, which had left Spain under the command of one of
his brothers, Hasdrubal, had crossed the Alps, and was advancing to
unite with him, marching along the coast of the Adriatic. Two consular
armies were charged with the war against the Carthaginians: one, under
the command of the consul M. Livius Salinator, in Umbria; the other,
having at its head the consul C. Claudius Nero, held Hannibal in check
in Lucania, and had even obtained an advantage over him at Grumentum.
Hannibal had advanced as far as Canusium, when the consul Claudius Nero,
informed of the numerical superiority of the army of succour, leaves his
camp under the guard of Q. Cassius, his lieutenant, conceals his
departure, effects his junction with his colleague, and defeats, near
the Metaurus, Hasdrubal, who perished in the battle with all his
army.[528] From that moment Hannibal foresees the fate of Carthage; he
abandons Apulia, and even Lucania, and retires into the only country
which had remained faithful, Bruttium. He remains shut up there five
years more, in continual expectation of reinforcements,[529] and only
quits Italy when his country, threatened by the Roman legions, already
on the African soil, calls him home to her defence.

In this war the marine of the two nations performed an important part.
The Romans strained every nerve to remain masters of the sea; their
fleets, stationed at Ostia, Brundusium, and Lilybæum, kept incessantly
the most active watch upon the coasts of Italy; they even made cruises
to the neighbourhood of Carthage and as far as Greece.[530] The
difficulty of the direct communications induced the Carthaginians to
send their troops by way of Spain and the Alps, where their armies
recruited on the road, rather than dispatch them to the southern coast
of Italy. Hannibal received but feeble reinforcements;[531] Livy
mentions two only: the first of 4,000 Numidians and 40 elephants; and
the second, brought by Bomilcar to the coast of the Ionian Gulf, near
Locri.[532] All the other convoys appear to have been intercepted, and
one of the most considerable, laden with stores and troops, was
destroyed on the coast of Sicily.[533]

We cannot but admire the constancy of the Romans in face of enemies who
threatened them on all sides. During the same period they repressed the
Cisalpine Gauls and the Etruscans, combated the King of Macedonia, the
ally of Hannibal, sustained a fierce war in Spain, and resisted in
Sicily the attacks of the Syracusans, who, after the death of Hiero, had
declared against the Republic. It took three years to reduce Syracuse,
defended by Archimedes. Rome kept on foot, as long as the Second Punic
war lasted, from sixteen to twenty-four legions,[534] recruited only in
the town and in Latium.[535] These twenty-three legions represented an
effective force of about 100,000 men, a number which will not appear
exaggerated if we compare it with the census of 534, which gave 270,213
men, and only comprised persons in a condition to bear arms.

In the thirteenth year of the war the chances seemed in favour of the
Republic. P. Cornelius Scipio, the son of the consul defeated at Trebia,
had just expelled the Carthaginians from Spain. The people, recognising
his genius, had conferred upon him, six years before, the powers of
proconsul, though he was only twenty-four years of age. On his return to
Rome, Scipio, elected consul (549), passed into Sicily, and from thence
to Africa, where, after a campaign of two years, he defeated Hannibal in
the plains of Zama, and compelled the rival of Rome to sue for peace
(552). The Senate accorded to the conqueror the greatest honour which a
Republic can confer upon one of her citizens--she left it to him to
dictate terms to the vanquished. Carthage was compelled to give up her
ships and her elephants, to pay 10,000 talents (58,000,000 francs
[£2,320,000]), and, finally, to enter into the humiliating engagement
not to make war in future without the authorisation of Rome.


[Sidenote: Results of the Second Punic War.]

VI. The second Punic war ended in the submission of Carthage and Spain,
but it was at the price of painful sacrifices. During this struggle of
sixteen years, a great number of the most distinguished citizens had
perished; at Cannæ alone two thousand seven hundred knights, two
questors, twenty-one tribunes of the soldiers, and many old consuls,
prætors, and ediles were slain; and so many senators had fallen, that it
was necessary to name a hundred and seventy-seven new ones, taken from
among those who had occupied the magistracies.[536] But such hard trials
had tempered anew the national character.[537] The Republic felt her
strength and her resources unfold themselves; she rejoiced in her
victories with a just pride, without yet experiencing the intoxication
of a too great fortune, and new bonds were formed between the different
peoples of Italy. War against a foreign invasion, in fact, has always
the immense advantage of putting an end to internal dissensions, and
unites the citizens against the common enemy. The greater part of the
allies gave unequivocable proofs of their devotion. The Republic owed
its safety, after the defeat of Cannæ, to the assistance of eighteen
colonies, which furnished men and money.[538] The fear of Hannibal had
fortunately given strength to concord, both in Rome and in Italy: no
more quarrels between the two orders,[539] no more divisions between the
governing and the governed. Sometimes the Senate refers to the people
the most serious questions; sometimes the people, full of trust in the
Senate, submits beforehand to its decision.[540]

It was especially during the struggle against Hannibal that the
inconvenience of the duality and of the annual change of the consular
powers became evident;[541] but this never-ceasing cause of weakness
was, as we have seen before, compensated by the spirit of patriotism.
Here is a striking example: while Fabius was pro-dictator, Minucius,
chief of the cavalry, was, contrary to the usual custom, invested with
the same powers. Hurried on by his temper, he compromised the army,
which was saved by Fabius. He acknowledged his error, submitted
willingly to the orders of his colleague, and thus restored, by his own
voluntary act, the unity of the command.[542] As to the continual change
of the military chiefs, the force of circumstances rendered it necessary
to break through this custom. The two Scipios remained seven years at
the head of the army of Spain; Scipio Africanus succeeded them for
almost as long a period. The Senate and the people had decided that,
during the war of Italy, the powers of the proconsuls and prætors might
be prorogued, and that the same consuls might be re-elected as often as
might be thought fit.[543] And subsequently, in the campaign against
Philip, the tribunes pointed out in the following terms the disadvantage
of such frequent changes: “During the four years that the war of
Macedonia lasted, Sulpicius had passed the greater part of his
consulship in seeking Philip and his army; Villius had overtaken the
enemy, but had been recalled before giving battle; Quinctius, retained
the greater part of the year at Rome by religious cares, would have
pushed the war with sufficient vigour to have entirely terminated it, if
he could have arrived at his destination before the season was so far
advanced. He had hardly entered his winter quarters, when he made
preparations for recommencing the campaign with the spring, with a view
of finishing it successfully, provided no successor came to snatch
victory from him.”[544] These arguments prevailed, and the consul was
prorogued in his command.

Thus continual wars tended to introduce the stability of military powers
and the permanence of armies. The same legions had passed ten years in
Spain; others had been nearly as long in Sicily; and though, at the
expiration of their service, the old soldiers were dismissed, the
legions remained always under arms. Hence arose the necessity of giving
lands to the soldiers who had finished their time of service; and, in
552, there were assigned to Scipio’s veterans, for each year of service
in Africa and Spain, two acres of the lands confiscated from the
Samnites and Apulians.[545]

It was the first time that Rome took foreign troops into her pay,
sometimes Celtiberians, at others Cretans sent by Hiero of
Syracuse,[546] in fact, mercenaries, and a body of discontented Gauls
who had abandoned the Carthaginian army.[547]

Many of the inhabitants of the allied towns were drawn to Rome,[548]
where, in spite of the sacrifices imposed by the wars, commerce and
luxury increased. The spoils which Marcellus brought from Sicily, and
especially from Syracuse, had given development to the taste for the
arts, and this consul boasted of having been the first who caused his
countrymen to appreciate and admire the masterpieces of Greece.[549] The
games of the circus, in the middle of the sixth century, began to be
more in favour. Junius and Decius Brutus had, in 490, exhibited for the
first time the combats of gladiators, the number of which was soon
increased to twenty-two pairs.[550] Towards this period, also (559),
theatrical representations were first given by the ediles.[551] The
spirit of speculation had taken possession of the high classes, as
appears by the law forbidding the senators (law Claudia, 536) to
maintain at sea ships of a tonnage of more than three hundred amphoræ;
as the public wealth increased, the knights, composed of the class who
paid most taxes, increased also, and tended to separate into two
categories, some serving in the cavalry, and possessing the horse
furnished by the State (_equus publicus_),[552] the others devoting
themselves to commerce and financial operations. The knights had long
been employed in civil commissions,[553] and were often called to the
high magistracies; and therefore Perseus justly called them “the nursery
of the Senate, and the young nobility out of which issued consuls and
generals (_imperatores_).”[554] During the Punic wars they had rendered
great services by making large advances for the provisioning of the
armies;[555] and if some, as undertakers of transports, had enriched
themselves at the expense of the State, the Senate hesitated in
punishing their embezzlements, for fear of alienating this class,
already powerful.[556] The territorial wealth was partly in the hands of
the great proprietors; this appears from several facts, and, among
others, from the hospitality given by a lady of Apulia to 10,000 Roman
soldiers, who had escaped from the battle of Cannæ, whom she entertained
at her own private cost on her own lands.[557]

Respect for the higher classes had been somewhat shaken, as we learn
from the adoption of a measure of apparently little importance. Since
the fall of the kingly power, there had been established in the public
games no distinction between the spectators. Deference for authority
rendered all classification superfluous, and “never would a plebeian,”
says Valerius Maximus,[558] “have ventured to place himself before a
senator.” But, towards 560, a law was passed for assigning to the
members of the Senate reserved places. It is necessary, for the good
order of society, to increase the severity of the laws as the feeling of
the social hierarchy becomes weakened.

Circumstances had brought other changes; the tribuneship, without being
abolished, had become an auxiliary of the aristocracy. The tribunes no
longer exclusively represented the plebeian order; they were admitted
into the Senate; they formed part of the government, and employed their
authority in the interest of justice and the fatherland.[559] The three
kinds of comitia still remained,[560] but some modifications had been
introduced into them. The assembly of the curiæ[561] consisted now only
of useless formalities. Their attributes, more limited every day, were
reduced to the conferring of the _imperium_, and the deciding of certain
questions about auspices and religion. The comitia by centuries, which
in their origin were the assembly of the people in arms, voting in the
Campus Martius, and nominating their military chiefs, retained the same
privileges; only, the century had become a subdivision of the tribe. All
the citizens inscribed in each of the thirty-five tribes were separated
into five classes, according to their fortune; each class was divided
into two centuries, the one of the young men (_juniores_) the other of
the older men (_seniores_).

As to the comitia by tribes, in which each voted without distinction of
rank or fortune, their legislative power continued to increase as that
of the comitia by centuries diminished.

Thus the Roman institutions, while appearing to remain the same, were
incessantly changing. The political assemblies, the laws of the Twelve
Tables, the classes established by Servius Tullius, the yearly election
to offices, the military services, the tribuneship, the edileship, all
seemed to remain as in the past, and in reality all had changed through
the force of circumstances. Nevertheless, this appearance of immobility
in the midst of progressing society was one advantage of Roman manners.
Religious observers of tradition and ancient customs, the Romans did not
appear to destroy what they displaced; they applied ancient forms to new
principles, and thus introduced innovations without disturbance, and
without weakening the prestige of institutions consecrated by time.


[Sidenote: The Macedonian War (554).]

VII. During the second Punic war, Philip III., king of Macedonia, had
attacked the Roman settlements in Illyria, invaded several provinces of
Greece, and made an alliance with Hannibal. Obliged to check these
dangerous aggressions, the Senate, from 540 to 548, maintained large
forces on the coasts of Epirus and Macedonia; and, united with the
Ætolian league, and with Attalus, king of Pergamus, had forced Philip to
conclude peace. But in 553, after the victory of Zama, when this prince
again attacked the free cities of Greece and Asia allied to Rome, war
was declared against him. The Senate could not forget that at this last
battle a Macedonian contingent was found among the Carthaginian troops,
and that still there remained in Greece a large number of Roman citizens
sold for slaves after the battle of Cannæ.[562] Thus from each war was
born a new war, and every success was destined to force the Republic
into the pursuit of others. Now the Adriatic was to be passed, first, to
curb the power of the Macedonians, and then to call to liberty those
famous towns, the cradles of civilisation. The destinies of Greece could
not be a matter of indifference to the Romans, who had borrowed her
laws, her science, her literature, and her arts.

Sulpicius, appointed to combat Philip, landed on the coast of Epirus,
and penetrated into Macedonia, where he gained a succession of
victories, while one of his lieutenants, sent to Greece with the fleet,
caused the siege of Athens to be raised. During two years the war
languished, but the Roman fleet, combined with that of Attalus and the
Rhodians, remained master of the sea (555). T. Quinctius Flamininus,
raised to the consulship while still young, justified, by his
intelligence and energy, the confidence of his fellow-citizens. He
detached the Achaians and Bœtians from their alliance with the King
of Macedonia, and, with the aid of the Ætolians, gained the battle of
Cynoscephalæ in Thessaly (557), where the legion routed the celebrated
phalanx of Philip II. and Alexander the Great. Philip III., compelled to
make peace, was fain to accept hard conditions; the first of which was
the obligation to withdraw his garrisons from the towns of Greece and
Asia, and the prohibition to make war without the permission of the
Senate.

The recital of Livy, which speaks of the decree proclaiming liberty to
Greece, deserves to be quoted. We see there what value the Senate then
attached to moral influence, and to that true popularity which the glory
of having freed a people gives:--

“The epoch of the celebration of the Isthmian games generally attracted
a great concourse of spectators, either because of the natural taste of
the Greeks for all sorts of games, or because of the situation of
Corinth, which, seated on two seas, offered easy access to the curious.
But on this occasion an immense multitude flocked thither from all
parts, in expectation of the future fate of Greece in general, and of
each people in particular: this was the only subject of thought and
conversation. The Romans take their place, and the herald, according to
custom, advances into the middle of the arena, whence the games are
announced according to a solemn form. The trumpet sounds, silence is
proclaimed, and the herald pronounces these words: ‘The Roman Senate,
and S.T. Quinctius, imperator, conquerors of Philip and the Macedonians,
re-establish in the enjoyment of liberty, their laws, and privileges,
the Corinthians, the Phocians, the Locrians, the island of Eubœa, the
Magnetes, the Thessalians, the Perrhœbi, and the Achæans of
Phthiotis.’ These were the names of all the nations which had been under
the dominion of Philip. At this proclamation, the assembly was overcome
with excess of joy. Hardly anybody could believe what he heard. The
Greeks looked at each other as if they were still in the illusions of a
pleasant dream, to be dissipated on awakening, and, distrusting the
evidence of their ears, they asked their neighbours if they were not
deceived. The herald is recalled, each man burning, not only to hear,
but to see the messenger of such good news; he reads the decree a second
time. Then, no longer able to doubt their happiness, they uttered cries
of joy, and bestowed on their liberator such loud and repeated applause
as make it easy to see that, of all good, liberty is that which has most
charm for the multitude. Then the games were celebrated, but hastily,
and without attracting the looks or the attention of the spectators. One
interest alone absorbed their souls, and took from them the feeling of
every other pleasure.

“The games ended, the people rush towards the Roman general; everybody
is anxious to greet him, to take his hand, to cast before him crowns of
flowers and of ribbons, and the crowd was so great that he was almost
suffocated. He was but thirty-three years of age, and the vigour of
life, joined with the intoxication of a glory so dazzling, gave him
strength to bear up against such a trial. The joy of the peoples was not
confined to the enthusiasm of the moment: the impression was kept up
long afterwards in their thoughts and speech. ‘There was then,’ they
said, ‘one nation upon earth, which, at its own cost, at the price of
fatigues and perils, made war for the liberty of peoples even though
removed from their frontiers and continent: this nation crossed the
seas, in order that there should not be in the whole world one single
unjust government, and that right, equity, and law should be everywhere
dominant. The voice of a herald had been sufficient to restore freedom
to all the cities of Greece and Asia. The idea alone of such a design
supposed a rare greatness of soul; but to execute it needed as much
courage as fortune.’”[563]

There was, however, a shadow on the picture. All Peloponnesus was not
freed, and Flamininus, after having taken several of his possessions
from Nabis, king of Sparta, had concluded peace with him, without
continuing the siege of Lacedæmon, of which he dreaded the length. He
feared also the arrival of a more dangerous enemy, Antiochus III., who
had already reached Thrace, and threatened to go over into Greece with a
considerable army. For this the allied Greeks, occupied only with their
own interests, reproached the Roman consul with having concluded peace
too hastily with Philip, whom, in their opinion, he could have
annihilated.[564] But Flamininus replied that he was not commissioned to
dethrone Philip, and that the existence of the kingdom of Macedonia was
necessary as a barrier against the barbarians of Thrace, Illyria, and
Gaul.[565] Meanwhile, accompanied even to their ships by the
acclamations of the people, the Roman troops evacuated the cities
restored to liberty (560), and Flamininus returned to a triumph at Rome,
bringing with him that glorious protectorate of Greece, so long an
object of envy to the successors of Alexander.


[Sidenote: War against Antiochus (563).]

VIII. The policy of the Senate had been to make Macedonia a rampart
against the Thracians, and Greece herself a rampart against Macedonia.
But, though the Romans had freed the Achæan league, they did not intend
to create a formidable power or confederation. Then, as formerly, the
Athenians, the Spartans, the Bœotians, the Ætolians, and, finally,
the Achæans, each endeavoured to constitute an Hellenic league for their
own advantage; and each aspiring to dominate over the others, turned
alternately to those from whom it hoped the most efficient support at
the time. In the Hellenic peninsula, properly so called, the Ætolians,
to whose territory the Senate had promised to join Phocis and Locris,
coveted the cities of Thessaly, which the Romans obstinately refused
them.

Thus, although reinstated in the possession of their independence,
neither the Ætolians, the Achæans, nor yet the Spartans, were satisfied:
they all dreamt of aggrandisement. The Ætolians, more impatient, made,
in 562, three simultaneous attempts against Thessaly, the island of
Eubœa, and Peloponnesus. Having only succeeded in seizing Demetrias,
they called Antiochus III. to Greece, that they might place him at the
head of the hegemony, which they sought in vain to obtain from the
Romans.

The better part of the immense heritage left by Alexander the Great had
fallen to this prince. Already, some years before, Flamininus had given
him notice that it belonged to the honour of the Republic not to
abandon Greece, of which the Roman people had loudly proclaimed itself
the liberator; and that after having delivered it from the yoke of
Philip, the Senate now wished to free from the dominion of Antiochus all
the Asian cities of Hellenic origin.[566] Hannibal, who had taken refuge
with the King of Syria, encouraged him to resist, by engaging him to
carry the struggle into Italy, as he himself had done. War was then
declared by the Romans. To maintain the independence of Greece against
an Asiatic prince was at once to fulfil treaties and undertake the
defence of civilisation against barbarism. Thus, in proclaiming the most
generous ideas, the Republic justified its ambition.

The services rendered by Rome were already forgotten.[567] Antiochus
thus found numerous allies in Greece, secret or declared. He organised a
formidable confederacy, into which entered the Ætolians, the Athamanes,
the Elians, and the Bœotians, and, having landed at Chalcis,
conquered Eubœa and Thessaly. The Romans opposed to him the King of
Macedonia and the Achæans. Beaten at Thermopylæ, in 563, by the consul
Acilius Glabrio, aided by Philip, the King of Syria withdrew to Asia,
and the Ætolians, left to themselves, demanded peace, which was granted
them in 563.

It was not enough to have compelled Antiochus to abandon Greece. L.
Scipio, having his brother, the vanquisher of Carthage, for his
lieutenant, went in 564 to seek him out in his own territory. Philip
favoured the passage of the Roman army, which crossed Macedonia, Thrace,
and the Hellespont without difficulty. The victories gained at Myonnesus
by sea, and at Magnesia by land, terminated the campaign, and compelled
Antiochus to yield up all his provinces on this side Mount Taurus, and
pay 15,000 talents--a third more than the tax imposed on Carthage after
the second Punic war. The Senate, far from reducing Asia then to a
province, exacted only just and moderate conditions.[568] All the Greek
towns of that country were declared free, and the Romans only occupied
certain important points, and enriched their allies at the expense of
Syria. The King of Pergamus and the Rhodian fleet had seconded the Roman
army. Eumenes II., the successor of Attalus I., saw his kingdom
increased; Rhodes obtained Lycia and Caria; Ariarathes, king of
Cappadocia, who had given aid to Antiochus, paid two hundred
talents.[569]


[Sidenote: The War in the Cisalpine (558-579).]

IX. The prompt submission of the East was a fortunate occurrence for the
Republic, for near at home, enemies, always eager and watchful, might at
any moment, supported or excited by their brethren on the other side of
the Alps, attack her in the very centre of her empire.

Indeed, since the time of Hannibal, war had been perpetuated in the
Cisalpine, the bellicose tribes of which, though often beaten, engaged
continually in new insurrections. The settlement of the affairs of
Macedonia left the Senate free to act with more vigour, and in 558 the
defeat of the Ligures, of the Boii, of the Insubres, and of the
Cenomani, damped the ardour of these barbarous peoples. The Ligures and
the Boii, however, continued the strife; but the bloody battle of 561,
fought near Modena, and, later, the ravages committed by L. Flamininus,
brother of the conqueror of Cynoscephalæ, and Scipio Nasica, during the
following years, obliged the Boii to treat. Compelled to yield the half
of their territory, they retired towards the Danube in 564, and three
years afterwards Cisalpine Gaul was formed into a Roman province.

As to the Ligures, they maintained a war of desperation to the end of
the century. Their resistance was such that Rome was obliged to meet it
with measures of excessive rigour; and in 574, more than 47,000 Ligures
were transported into a part of Samnium which had been left almost
without inhabitants since the war with Hannibal. In 581, lands beyond
the Po were distributed to other Ligures.[570] Every year the frontiers
receded more towards the north, and military roads,[571] the foundation
of important colonies, secured the march of the armies--a system which
had been interrupted during the second Punic war, but was afterwards
adopted, and especially applied to the south of Italy and the
Cisalpine.[572]

In achieving the submission of this last province, Rome had put an end
to other less important wars. In 577 she reduced the Istrians; in 579,
the Sardinians and the Corsicans; finally, from 569 to 573, she extended
her conquests into Spain, where she met the same enemies as Carthage had
encountered.


[Sidenote: War against Persia (583).]

X. For twenty-six years had peace been maintained with Philip, the
Ætolians vanquished, the peoples of Asia subdued, and the greater part
of Greece restored to liberty. Profiting by its co-operation with the
Romans against Antiochus, the Achæan league had largely increased, and
Philopœmen had brought into it Sparta, Messene, and the island of
Zacynthus; but these countries, impatient of the Achæan rule, soon
sought to free themselves from it. Thus was realised the prediction of
Philip, who told the Thessalian envoys, after the battle of
Cynoscephalæ, that the Romans would soon repent of having given liberty
to peoples incapable of enjoying it, and whose dissensions and
jealousies would always keep up a dangerous agitation.[573] In fact,
Sparta and Messene rebelled, and sued for help from Rome. Philopœmen,
after having cruelly punished the first of these cities, perished in his
struggle with the second. Thessaly and Ætolia were torn by anarchy and
civil war.

Whilst the Republic was occupied in restoring tranquillity to these
countries, a new adversary came to imprudently attract its wrath. One
would say that Fortune, while raising up so many enemies against Rome,
took pleasure in delivering them, one after the other, into her hands.
The old legend of Horatius killing the three Curiatii in succession was
a lesson which the Senate had never forgotten.

Perseus, heir to his father’s crown and enmities, had taken advantage of
the peace to increase his army and his resources, to make allies, and to
rouse up the kings and peoples of the East against Rome. Besides the
warlike population of his own country, he had at his beck barbarous
peoples like the Illyrians, the Thracians, and the Bastarnæ, dwelling
not far from the Danube. Notwithstanding the treaty, which forbad
Macedonia to make war without the consent of the Senate, Perseus had
silently aggrandised himself on the side of Thrace; he had placed
garrisons in the maritime cities of Oenoe and Maronia, excited the
Dardanians[574] to war, brought under subjection the Dolopes, and
advanced as far as Delphi.[575] He endeavored to draw the Achæans into
an alliance, and skilfully obtained the good-will of the Greeks. Eumenes
II., king of Pergamus, who, like his father Attalus I., feared the
encroachments of Macedonia, denounced at Rome this infraction of the old
treaties. The fear with which a powerful prince inspired him, and the
gratitude which he owed to the Republic for the aggrandisement of his
kingdom after the Asian war, obliged him to cultivate the friendship of
the Roman people. In 582 he came to Rome, and, honourably received by
the Senate, forgot nothing which might excite it against Perseus, whom
he accused of ambitious designs hostile to the Republic. This
denunciation raised violent enmities against Eumenes. On his way back to
his kingdom, he was attacked by assassins, and dangerously wounded.
Suspicion fell on the Macedonian monarch, not without show of reason,
and was taken by the Republic as sufficient ground for declaring war on
a prince whose power began to offend it.

Bold in planning, Perseus displayed cowardice when it was necessary to
act. After having from the first haughtily rejected the Roman claims, he
waited in Thessaly for their army, which, ill-commanded and
ill-organised, was beaten by his lieutenants and repulsed into mountain
gorges, where it might have been easily destroyed. He then offered peace
to P. Licinius Crassus; but, notwithstanding his check, the consul
replied, with all the firmness of the Roman character, that peace was
only possible if Perseus would abandon his person and his kingdom to the
discretion of the Senate.[576] Struck by so much assurance, the king
recalled his troops, and suffered the enemy to effect his retreat
undisturbed. The incapacity of the Roman generals, however, their
violences, and the want of discipline among the soldiers, had alienated
the Greeks, who naturally preferred a prince of their own race to a
foreign captain; moreover, they did not see the Macedonians get the
better of the Romans without a certain satisfaction. In their eyes, it
was the Hellenic civilisation overthrowing the presumption of the
Western barbarians.

The campaigns of 584 and 585 were not more fortunate for the Roman arms.
A consul had the rash idea of invading Macedonia by the passes of
Callipeuce, where his army would have been annihilated if the king had
had the courage to defend himself. At the approach of the legions he
took to flight, and the Romans escaped from their perilous position
without loss.[577] At length, the people, feeling the necessity of
having an eminent man at the head of the army, nominated Paulus Æmilius
consul, who had given many proofs of his military talents in the
Cisalpine. Already the greater part of the Gallo-græci were in treaty
with Perseus. The Illyrians and the people of the Danube offered to
second him. The Rhodians, and the King of Pergamus himself, persuaded
that Fortune was going to declare herself for the King of Macedonia,
made him offers of alliance; he chaffered with them with the most
inexplicable levity. In the mean time, the Roman army, ably conducted,
advanced by forced marches. One single combat terminated the war; and
the battle of Pydna, in 586, once more proved the superiority of the
Roman legion over the phalanx. This, however, did not yield
ingloriously; and, though abandoned by their king, who fled, the
Macedonian hoplites died at their post.

When they heard of this defeat, Eumenes and the Rhodians hastened to
wipe out the remembrance of their ever having doubted the fortune of
Rome[578] by the swiftness of their repentance. At the same time, L.
Anicius conquered Illyria and seized the person of Gentius. Macedonia
was divided into four states called _free_, that is to say, presided
over by magistrates chosen by themselves, but under the protectorate of
the Republic. By the law imposed on these new provinces, all marriages,
and all exchange of immovable property, were interdicted between the
citizens of different states,[579] and the imports reduced one-half. As
we see, the Republic applied the system practised in 416 to dissolve the
Latin confederacy, and later, in 449, that of the Hernici. Illyria was
also divided into three parts. The towns which had first yielded were
exempt from all tribute, and the taxes of the others reduced to
half.[580]

It is not uninteresting to recall to mind how Livy appreciates the
institutions which Macedonia and Illyria received at this epoch. “It was
decreed,” he says, “that liberty should be given to the Macedonians and
Illyrians, to prove to the whole universe that, in carrying their arms
so far, the object of the Romans was to deliver the enslaved peoples,
not to enslave the free peoples; to guarantee to these last their
independence, to the nations subject to kings a milder and more just
government; and to convince them that, in the wars which might break out
between the Republic and their sovereigns, the result would be the
liberty of the peoples: Rome reserving to herself only the honour of
victory.”[581]

Greece, and above all Epirus, sacked by Paulus Æmilius, underwent the
penalty of defection. As to the Achæan league, the fidelity of which had
appeared doubtful, nearly a thousand of the principal citizens, guilty
or suspected of having favoured the Macedonians, were sent as hostages
to Rome.[582]


[Sidenote: Modification of Roman policy.]

XI. In carrying her victorious arms through almost all the borders of
the Mediterranean, the Republic had hitherto obeyed either legitimate
needs or generous inspirations. Care for her future greatness, for her
existence even, made it absolute on her to dispute the empire of the sea
with Carthage. Hence the wars, of which Sicily, Sardinia, Spain, Italy,
and Africa, by turns, became the theatre. It was also her duty to combat
the warlike peoples of the Cisalpine, that she might ensure the safety
of her frontiers. As to the expeditions of Macedonia and Asia, Rome had
been drawn into them by the conduct of foreign kings, their violation of
treaties, their guilty plottings, and their attacks on her allies.

To conquer thus became to her an obligation, under pain of seeing fall
to ruin the edifice which she had built up at the price of so many
sacrifices; and, what is remarkable, she showed herself after victory
magnificent towards her allies, clement to the vanquished, and moderate
in her pretensions. Leaving to the kings all the glory of the throne,
and to the nations their laws and liberties, she had reduced to Roman
provinces only a part of Spain, Sicily, Sardinia, and Cisalpine Gaul. In
Sicily she preserved the most intimate alliance with Hiero, tyrant of
Syracuse, for fifty years. The constant support of this prince must have
shown the Senate how much such alliances were preferable to direct
dominion. In Spain she augmented the territory of all the chiefs who
consented to become her allies. After the battle of Cynoscephalæ, as
after that of Magnesia, she maintained on their thrones Philip and
Antiochus, and imposed on this last only the same conditions as those
offered before the victory. If, after the battle of Pydna, she overthrew
Perseus, it was because he had openly violated his engagements; but she
gave equitable laws to Macedonia. Justice then ruled her conduct, even
towards her oldest rival; for when Masinissa asked the help of the
Senate in his quarrels with Carthage, he received for answer that, even
in his favour, justice could not be sacrificed.[583]

In Egypt her protection preserved the crown on the head of Ptolemy
Philometor and of his sister Cleopatra.[584] Finally, when all the kings
came after the victory of Pydna to offer their congratulations to the
Roman people, and to implore their protection, the Senate regulated
their demands with extreme justice. Eumenes, himself an object of
suspicion, sent his brother Attalus to Rome; and he, willing to profit
by the favourable impression he had made, thought to ask for him a part
of the kingdom of Pergamus. He was recommended to give up the design.
The Senate restored his son to Cotys, king of Thrace, without ransom,
saying that the Roman people did not make a traffic of their
benefits.[585] Finally, in the disputes between Prusias, king of
Bithynia, and the Gallo-græcians, it declared that justice alone could
dictate its decision.[586]

How, then, did so much nobleness of views, so much magnanimity in
success, so much prudence in conduct seem to be belied, dating from that
period of twenty-two years which divides the war against Persia from the
third Punic war? Because too much success dazzles nations as well as
kings. When the Romans began to think that nothing could resist them in
the future because nothing had resisted them in the past, they believed
that all was permitted them. They no longer made war to protect their
allies, defend their frontiers, or destroy coalitions, but to crush the
weak, and use nations for their own profit. We must also acknowledge
that the inconstancy of the peoples, faithful in appearance, but always
plotting some defection, and the hatred of the kings, concealing their
resentment under a show of abasement, concurred to render the Republic
more suspicious and more exacting, and caused it to count from
henceforth rather on its subjects than on its allies. Vainly did the
Senate seek to follow the grand traditions of the past; it was no longer
strong enough to curb individual ambitions; and the same institutions
which formerly brought forth the virtues, now only protected the vices
of aggrandised Rome. The generals dared no longer to obey; thus, the
consul Cn. Manlius attacks the Gallo-græcians in Asia without the orders
of the Senate;[587] A. Manlius takes on himself to make an expedition
into Istria;[588] the consul C. Cassius abandons the Cisalpine, his
province, and attempts of his own accord to penetrate into Macedonia by
Illyria;[589] the prætor Furius, on his own authority, disarms one of
the peoples of Cisalpine Gaul, the Cenomani, at peace with Rome;[590]
Popilius Lænas attacks the Statiellates without cause, and sells ten
thousand of them; others also oppress the peoples of Spain.[591] All
these things doubtless incur the blame of the Senate; the consuls and
prætors are disavowed, even accused, but their disobedience none the
less remain unpunished, and the accusations without result. In 599, it
is true, L. Lentulus, consul in the preceding year, underwent
condemnation for exaction, but that did not prevent him from being
raised again to the chief honours.[592]

As long as the object was only to form men destined for a modest part on
a narrow theatre, nothing was better than the annual election of the
consuls and prætors, by which, in a certain space of time, a great
number of the principal citizens of both the patrician and plebeian
nobility participated in the highest offices. Powers thus exercised
under the eyes of their fellow-citizens, rather for honour than
interest, obliged them to be worthy of their trust; but when, leading
their legions into the most remote countries, the generals, far from all
control, and invested with absolute power, enriched themselves by the
spoils of the vanquished, dignities were sought merely to furnish them
with wealth during their short continuance. The frequent re-election of
the magistrates, in multiplying the contests of candidates, multiplied
the ambitious, who scrupled at nothing to attain their object. Thus
Montesquieu justly observes, that “good laws which have made a small
republic great, become a burden to it when it has increased, because
their natural effect was to create a grand people, and not to govern
it.”[593]

The remedy for this overflowing of unruly passions would have been, on
the one hand, to moderate the desire for conquest; on the other, to
diminish the number of aspirants to power, by giving them a longer term
of duration. But then, the people alone, guided by its instincts, felt
the need of remedying this defect in the institution, by retaining in
authority those who had their confidence. Thus, they wished to appoint
Scipio Africanus perpetual dictator;[594] while pretended reformers,
such as Portius Cato, enslaved to old customs, and in a spirit of
exaggerated rigorism, made laws to interdict the same man from aspiring
twice to the consulship, and to advance the age at which it was lawful
to try for this high office.

All these measures were contrary to the object at which they aimed. In
maintaining annual elections, the way was left free to vulgar
covetousness; in excluding youth from high functions, they repressed the
impulses of those choice natures which early reveal themselves, and the
exceptional elevation of which had so often saved Rome from the greatest
disasters. Have we not seen, for example, in 406, Marcus Valerius
Corvus, raised to the consulate at twenty-three years of age, gain the
battle of Mount Gaurus against the Samnites; Scipio Africanus, nominated
proconsul at twenty-four, conquer Spain and humiliate Carthage; the
consul Quinctius Flamininus, at thirty, carry off from Philip the
victory of Cynoscephalæ? Finally, Scipio Æmilianus, who is to destroy
Carthage, will be elected consul, even before the age fixed by the law
of Cato.

No doubt, Cato the Censor, honest and incorruptible, had the laudable
design of arresting the decline of morals. But, instead of attacking the
cause, he only attacked the effect; instead of strengthening authority,
he tended to weaken it; instead of leaving the nations a certain
independence, he urged the Senate to bring them all under its absolute
dominion; instead of adopting what came from Greece with an enlightened
discernment, he indiscriminately condemned all that was of foreign
origin.[595] There was in Cato’s austerity more ostentation than real
virtue. Thus, during his censorship, he expelled Manlius from the Senate
for having kissed his wife before his daughter in open daylight; he took
pleasure in regulating the toilette and extravagance of the Roman
ladies; and, by an exaggerated disinterestedness, he sold his horse
when he quitted Spain, to save the Republic the cost of transport.[596]

But the Senate contained men less absolute, and wiser appreciators of
the needs of the age; they desired to repress abuses, to carry out a
policy of moderation, to curb the spirit of conquest, and to accept from
Greece all that she had of good. Scipio Nasica and Scipio Æmilianus
figured among the most important.[597] One did not reject whatever might
soften manners and increase human knowledge; the other cultivated the
new muses, and was even said to have assisted Terence.

The irresistible inclination of the people towards all that elevates the
soul and ennobles existence was not to be arrested. Greece had brought
to Italy her literature, her arts, her science, her eloquence; and when,
in 597, there came to Rome three celebrated philosophers--Carneades the
Academician, Diogenes the Stoic, and Critolaus the Peripatetic--as
ambassadors from Athens, they produced an immense sensation. The young
men flocked in crowds to see and hear them; the Senate itself approved
this homage paid to men whose talent must polish, by the culture of
letters, minds still rude and unformed.[598] Cato alone, inexorable,
pretended that these arts would soon corrupt the Roman youth, and
destroy its taste for arms; and he caused these philosophers to be
dismissed.

Sent to Africa as arbiter to appease the struggle between Masinissa and
Carthage, he only embittered it. Jealous at seeing this ancient rival
still great and prosperous, he did not cease pronouncing against her
that famous decree of death: _Delenda est Carthago_. Scipio Nasica, on
the contrary, opposed the destruction of Carthage, which he considered
too weak to do injury, yet strong enough to keep up a salutary fear,
which might prevent the people from casting themselves into all those
excesses which are the inevitable consequences of the unbounded increase
of empires.[599] Unhappily, the opinion of Cato triumphed.

As one of our first writers says, it must be “that truth is a divine
thing, since the errors of good men are as fatal to humanity as vice,
which is the error of the wicked.”

Cato, by persecuting with his accusations the principal citizens, and,
among others, Scipio Africanus, taught the Romans to doubt virtue.[600]
By exaggeration in his attacks, and by delivering his judgments with
passion, he caused his justice to be suspected.[601] By condemning the
vices from which he himself was not exempt, he deprived his
remonstrances of all moral force.[602] When he scourged the people as
accuser and judge, without seeking to raise them by education and laws,
he resembled, says a learned German, that Persian king who whipped the
sea with rods to make the tempest cease.[603] His influence, though
powerless to arrest the movement of one civilisation taking the place of
another, failed not to produce a fatal effect on the policy of that
period.[604] The Senate, renouncing the moderation and justice which
hitherto had stamped all its deeds, adopted in their stead a crafty and
arrogant line of action, and a system of extermination.

Towards the beginning of the seventh century, everything disappears
before the Roman power. The independence of peoples, kingdoms, and
republics ceases to exist. Carthage is destroyed, Greece gives up her
arms, Macedonia loses her liberty, that of Spain perishes at Numantia,
and shortly afterwards Pergamus undergoes the same fate.


[Sidenote: Third Punic War (605-608).]

XII. Notwithstanding her abasement, Carthage still existed, the eternal
object of hatred and distrust. She was accused of connivance with the
Macedonians, ever impatient of their yoke; and to her was imputed the
resistance of the Celtiberian hordes. In 603, Masinissa and the
Carthaginians engaged in a new struggle. As, according to their
treaties, these last could not make war without authorisation, the
Senate deliberated on the course it was to take. Cato desired war
immediately. Scipio Nasica, on the contrary, obtained the appointment of
a new embassy, which succeeded in persuading Masinissa to evacuate the
territory in dispute; on its part, the Senate of Carthage consented to
submit to the wisdom of the ambassadors, when the populace at Carthage,
excited by those men who in troublous times speculate on the passions of
the mob, breaks out in insurrection, insults the Roman envoys, and
expels the chief citizens.[605] A fatal insurrection; for in moments of
external crisis all popular movements ruin a nation,[606] as all
political change is fatal in the presence of a foreigner invading the
soil of the fatherland. However, the Roman Senate judged it best to
temporise, because of the war in Spain, where Scipio Æmilianus then
served in the capacity of tribune. Ordered to Africa (603), to obtain
from Masinissa elephants for the war against the Celtiberians, he
witnessed a sanguinary defeat of the Carthaginian army. This event
decided the question of Roman intervention; the Senate, in fact, had no
intention of leaving the entire sovereignty of Africa to the Numidian
king, whose possessions already extended from the ocean to Cyrene.[607]

In vain did Carthage send ambassadors to Rome to explain her conduct.
They obtained no satisfaction. Utica yielded to the Romans (604), and
the two consuls, L. Marcius Censorinus, and M. Manlius Nepos, arrived
there at the head of 80,000 men in 605. Carthage sues for peace; they
impose the condition that she shall give up her arms; she delivers them
up, with 2,000 engines of war. But soon exactions increase; the
inhabitants are commanded to quit their city and retire ten miles
inland. Exasperated by so much severity, the Carthaginians recover their
energy; they forge new weapons, raise the populace, fling into the
campaign Hasdrubal, who has soon collected 70,000 men in his camp at
Nepheris, and gives the consuls reason to fear the success of their
enterprise.[608]

The Roman army met with a resistance it was far from expecting.
Endangered by Manlius, it was saved by the tribune, Scipio Æmilianus, on
whom all eyes were turned. On his return to Rome, he was in 607 elected
consul at the age of thirty-six years, and charged with the direction of
the war, which henceforth took a new aspect. Carthage is soon inclosed
by works of prodigious labour; on land, trenches surround the place and
protect the besiegers; by sea, a colossal bar interrupts all
communication, and gives up the city to famine; but the Carthaginians
build a second fleet in their inner port, and excavate a new
communication with the sea. During the winter Scipio goes and forces the
camp at Nepheris, and on the return of spring makes himself master of
the first enclosure; finally, after a siege which lasted for three
years, with heroic efforts on both sides, the town and its citadel Byrsa
are carried, and entirely razed to the ground. Hasdrubal surrendered,
with fifty thousand inhabitants, the remains of an immense population;
but on a fragment of the wall which had escaped the fire, the wife of
the last Carthaginian chief, dressed in her most gorgeous robes, was
seen to curse her husband, who had not had the courage to die; then,
after having slain her two children, she flung herself into the flames.
A mournful image of a nation which achieves her own ruin, but which does
not fall ingloriously.

When the vessel laden with magnificent spoils, and adorned with laurels,
entered the Tiber, bearer of the grand news, all the citizens rushed out
into the streets embracing and congratulating each other on so joyful a
victory. Now only did Rome feel herself free from all fear, and the
mistress of the world. Nevertheless, the destruction of Carthage was a
crime which Caius Gracchus, Julius Cæsar, and Augustus sought to repair.


[Sidenote: Greece, Macedonia, Numantia, and Pergamus reduced to
Provinces.]

XIII. The same year saw the destruction of the Greek autonomy. Since the
war with Persia, the preponderance of Roman influence had maintained
order in Achaia; but on the return of the hostages, in 603, coincident
with the troubles of Macedonia, party enmities were re-awakened.
Dissensions soon broke out between the Achæan league and the cities of
the Peloponnesus, which it coveted, and the resistance of which it did
not hesitate to punish by destruction and pillage.

Sparta soon rebelled, and Peloponnesus was all in flames. The Romans
made vain efforts to allay this general disturbance. The envoys of the
Senate carried a decree to Corinth, which detached from the league
Sparta, Argos, Orchomenus, and Arcadia. On hearing this, the Achæans
massacred the Lacedæmonians then at Corinth, and loaded the Roman
commissioners with insults.[609] Before using severity, the Roman
Senate resolved to make one appeal to conciliation; but the words of the
new envoys were not listened to.

The Achæan league, united with Eubœa and Bœotia, then dared to
declare war against Rome, which they knew to be occupied in Spain and
Africa. The league was soon vanquished at Scarphia, in Locris, by
Metellus, and at Leucopetra, near Corinth, by Mummius. The towns of the
Achæan league were treated rigorously; Corinth was sacked; and Greece,
under the name of Achaia, remained in subjection to the Romans
(608).[610]

However, Mummius, as Polybius himself avows,[611] showed as much
moderation as disinterestedness after the victory. He preserved in their
places the statues of Philopœmen, kept none of the trophies taken in
Greece for himself, and remained so poor that the Senate conferred a
dowry upon his daughter from the public treasury.

About the same time the severity of the Senate had not spared Macedonia.
During the last Punic war, a Greek adventurer, Andriscus, pretending to
be the son of Perseus, had stirred up the country to rebellion, with an
army of Thracians. Driven out of Thessaly by Scipio Nasica, he returned
there, slew the prætor Juventius Thalna, and formed an alliance with the
Carthaginians. Beaten by Metellus, he was sent to Rome loaded with
chains. Some years later, a second impostor having also endeavoured to
seize the succession of Perseus, the Senate reduced Macedonia to a
Roman province (612). It was the same with Illyria after the submission
of the Ardæi (618). Never had so many triumphs been seen. Scipio
Æmilianus had triumphed over Africa, Metellus over Macedonia, Mummius
over Achaia, and Fulvius Flaccus over Illyria.

Delivered henceforth from its troubles in the east and south, the Senate
turned its attention towards Spain. This country had never entirely
yielded: its strength hardly restored, it took up arms again. After the
pacification which Scipio Africanus and Sempronius Gracchus successively
induced, new insurrections broke forth; the Lusitanians, yielding to the
instigations of Carthage, had revolted in 601, and had gained some
advantages over Mummius and his successor Galba (603). But this last, by
an act of infamous treachery, massacred thirty thousand prisoners.
Prosecuted for this act at Rome by Cato, he was acquitted. Subsequently,
another consul showed no less perfidy: Licinius Lucullus, having entered
the town of Cauca, which had surrendered, slew twenty thousand of its
inhabitants, and sold the rest.[612]

So much cruelty excited the indignation of the peoples of Northern
Spain, and, as always happens, the national feeling brought forth a
hero. Viriathus, who had escaped the massacre of the Lusitanians, and
from a shepherd had become a general, began a war of partisans, and, for
five years, having vanquished the Roman generals, ended by rousing the
Celtiberians. Whilst these occupied Metellus the Macedonian, Fabius,
left alone against Viriathus, was hemmed into a defile by him, and
constrained to accept peace. The murder of Viriathus left the issue of
the war no longer doubtful. This death was too advantageous to the
Romans not to be imputed to Cæpio, successor to his brother Fabius. But
when the murderers came to demand the wages of their crime, they were
told that the Romans had never approved of the massacre of a general by
his soldiers.[613] The Lusitanians, however, submitted, and the legions
penetrated to the ocean.

The war, ended in the west, became concentrated round Numantia,[614]
where, in the course of five years, several consuls were defeated. When,
in 616, Mancinus, surrounded by the enemy on all sides, was reduced to
save his army by a shameful capitulation, like that of the Furculæ
Caudinæ, the Senate refused to ratify the treaty, and gave up the consul
loaded with chains. The same fate was reserved for Tiberius Gracchus,
his questor, who had guaranteed the treaty; but, through the favour of
the people, he remained at Rome. The Numantines still resisted for a
long time with rare energy. The conqueror of Carthage himself had to go
to direct the siege, which required immense works; and yet the town was
taken only by famine (621). Spain was overcome, but her spirit of
independence survived for a great number of years.

Although the fall of the kingdom of Pergamus was posterior to the events
we have just related, we will speak of it here because it is the
continuation of the system of reducing all peoples to subjection.
Attalus III., a monster of cruelty and folly, had, when dying,
bequeathed his kingdom to the Roman people, who sent troops to take
possession of it; but a natural son of Eumenes, Aristonicus, raised the
inhabitants, and defeated the consul Licinius Crassus, soon avenged by
one of his successors. Aristonicus was taken, and the kingdom, pacified,
passed by the name of Asia under Roman domination (625).


[Sidenote: Summary.]

XIV. The more the Republic extended its empire, the more the number of
the high functions increased, and the more important they became. The
consuls, the proconsuls, and the prætors, governed not only foreign
countries, but Italy itself. In fact, Appian tells us that the
proconsuls exercised their authority in certain countries of the
peninsula.[615]

The Roman provinces were nine in number:--1. Cisalpine Gaul. 2. Farther
Spain. 3. Nearer Spain. 4. Sardinia and Corsica. 5. Sicily. 6. Northern
Africa. 7. Illyria. 8. Macedonia and Achaia. 9. Asia. The people
appointed yearly two consuls and seven prætors to go and govern these
distant countries; but generally these high offices were attainable only
by those who had been questors or ediles. Now, the edileship required a
large fortune; for the ediles were obliged to spend great sums in fêtes
and public works to please the people. The rich alone could aspire to
this first dignity; consequently, it was only the members of the
aristocracy who had a chance of arriving at the elevated position,
where, for one or two years, they were absolute masters of the destinies
of vast kingdoms. Thus, the nobility sought to keep these high offices
closed against new men. From 535 to 621--eighty-six years--nine families
alone obtained eighty-three consulships. Still later, twelve members of
the family Metellus gained various dignities in less than twelve years
(630-642.)[616] Nabis, tyrant of Sparta, was right then, when,
addressing the consul Quinctius Flamininus, he said, “With you, it is
regard for the pay which determines enlistments into the cavalry and
infantry. Power is for a small number; dependence is the lot of the
multitude. Our lawgiver (Lycurgus), on the contrary, did not wish to put
all the power into the hands of certain citizens, whose assembling
together you call the Senate, nor to give a legal pre-eminence to one or
two orders.”[617]

It is curious to see a tyrant of Greece give lessons in democracy to a
Roman. In reality, notwithstanding the changes introduced into the
comitia, the bearing of which is difficult to explain, the nobility
preserved its preponderance, and the habit of addressing the people only
after having taken the sense of the Senate, was still persisted in.[618]
The Roman government, always aristocratic, became more oppressive in
proportion as the State increased in extent, and it lost in influence
what the people of Italy gained in intelligence and in legitimate
aspirations towards a better future.

Besides, ever since the beginning of the Republic, it had harboured in
its breast two opposite parties, the one seeking to extend, the other to
restrict, the rights of the people. When the first came into power, all
the liberal laws of the past were restored to force; when the second
came in, these laws were evaded. Thus we see now the law Valeria, which
consecrates appeal to the people, thrice revived; now the law
interdicting the re-election of the consuls before an interval of ten
years, promulgated by Genucius in 412,[619] and immediately abandoned,
renewed in 603, and subsequently restored by Sylla; now the law which
threw the freedmen into the urban tribes, in order to annul their vote,
revived at three different epochs;[620] now the measures against
solicitation, against exactions, against usury, continually put into
force; and finally, the right of election to the sacerdotal office by
turn, refused or granted to the people.[621] By the Portian laws of 557
and 559, it was forbidden to strike with rods, or put to death, a Roman
citizen, before the people had pronounced upon his doom. And yet Scipio
Æmilianus, to evade this law, caused his auxiliaries to be beaten with
sticks and his soldiers with vine-stalks.[622] At the beginning of the
seventh century, the principle of secret voting was admitted in all
elections; in 615, in the elections of the magistrates; in 617, for the
decision of the people in judicial condemnations; in 623, in the votes
on proposals for laws. Finally, by the institution of permanent
tribunals (_quæstiones perpetuæ_), established from 605, it was sought
to remedy the spoliation of the provinces; but these institutions,
successively adopted or abandoned, could not heal the ills of society.
The manly virtues of an intelligent aristocracy had until then
maintained the Republic in a state of concord and greatness; its vices
were soon to shake it to its foundations.

We have just related the principal events of a period of one hundred and
thirty-three years, during which Rome displayed an energy which no
nation has ever equalled. On all sides, and almost at the same time, she
has passed her natural limits. In the north, she has subdued the
Cisalpine Gauls and crossed the Alps; in the west and south, she has
conquered the great islands of the Mediterranean and the greater part of
Spain. Carthage, her powerful rival, has ceased to exist. To the east,
the coasts of the Adriatic are colonised; the Illyrians, the Istrians,
the Dalmatians, are subjected; the kingdom of Macedonia has become a
tributary province; and the legions have penetrated even to the
Danube.[623] Farther than this exist only unknown lands, the country of
barbarians, too weak yet to cause alarm. Continental Greece, her isles,
Asia Minor up to Mount Taurus, all this country, the cradle of
civilisation, has entered into the Roman empire. The rest of Asia
receives her laws and obeys her influence. Egypt, the most powerful of
the kingdoms which made part of the heritage of Alexander, is under her
tutelage. The Jews implore her alliance. The Mediterranean has become a
Roman lake. The Republic vainly seeks an adversary worthy of her arms.
But if from without no serious danger seems to threaten her, within
exist great interests not satisfied, and peoples discontented.



CHAPTER VI.

THE GRACCHI, MARIUS, AND SYLLA.

(621-676.)


[Sidenote: State of the Republic.]

I. The age of disinterestedness and stoic virtues was passed; it had
lasted nearly four hundred years, and during that period, the antagonism
created by divergency of opinions and interests had never led to
sanguinary conflicts. The patriotism of the aristocracy and the good
sense of the people had prevented this fatal extremity; but, dating from
the first years of the seventh century, everything had changed, and at
every proposal of reform, or desire of power, nothing was seen but
sedition, civil wars, massacres, and proscriptions.

“The Republic,” says Sallust, “owed its greatness to the wise policy of
a small number of good citizens,”[624] and we may add that its decline
began the day on which their successors ceased to be worthy of those who
had gone before them. In fact, most of those who, after the Gracchi,
acted a great part, were so selfish and cruel that it is difficult to
decide, in the midst of their excesses, which was the representative of
the best cause.

As long as Carthage existed, like a man who is on his guard before a
dangerous rival, Rome showed an anxiety to maintain the purity and
wisdom of her ancient principles; but Carthage fallen, Greece
subjugated, the kings of Asia vanquished, the Republic, no longer held
by any salutary check, abandoned herself to the excesses of unlimited
power.[625]

Sallust draws the following picture of the state of society: “When,
freed from the fear of Carthage, the Romans had leisure to give
themselves up to their dissensions, then there sprang up on all sides
troubles, seditions, and at last civil wars. A small number of powerful
men, whose favour most of the citizens sought by base means, exercised a
veritable despotism under the imposing name, sometimes of the Senate, at
other times of the People. The title of good and bad citizen was no
longer the reward of what he did for or against his country, for all
were equally corrupt; but the more any one was rich, and in a condition
to do evil with impunity, provided he supported the present order of
things, the more he passed for a man of worth. From this moment, the
ancient manners no longer became corrupted gradually as before; but the
depravation spread with the rapidity of a torrent, and youth was to such
a degree infected by the poison of luxury and avarice, that there came a
generation of people of which it was just to say, that they could
neither have patrimony nor suffer others to have it.”[626]

The aggrandisement of the empire, frequent contact with strangers, the
introduction of new principles in philosophy and religion, the immense
riches brought into Italy by war and commerce, had all concurred in
causing a profound deterioration of the national character. There had
taken place an exchange of populations, ideas, and customs. On the one
hand, the Romans, whether soldiers, traders, or farmers of the revenues,
in spreading themselves abroad in crowds all over the world,[627] had
felt their cupidity increase amid the pomp and luxury of the East; on
the other, the foreigners, and especially the Greeks, flowing into
Italy, had brought, along with their perfection in the arts, contempt
for the ancient institutions. The Romans had undergone an influence
which may be compared with that which was exercised over the French of
the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries by Italy, then, it is true,
superior in intelligence, but perverted in morals. The seduction of vice
is irresistible when it presents itself under the form of elegance, wit,
and knowledge. As in all epochs of transition, the moral ties were
loosened, and the taste for luxury and the unbridled love of money had
taken possession of all classes.

Two characteristic facts, distant from one another by one hundred and
sixty-nine years, bear witness to the difference of morals at the two
periods. Cineas, sent by Pyrrhus to Rome, with rich presents, to obtain
peace, finds nobody open to corruption (474). Struck with the majesty
and patriotism of the senators, he compares the Senate to an assembly
of kings. Jugurtha, on the contrary, coming to Rome (643) to plead his
cause, finds his resources quickly exhausted in buying everybody’s
conscience, and, full of contempt for that great city, exclaims in
leaving it: “Venal town, which would soon perish if it could find a
purchaser!”[628]

Society, indeed, was placed, by noteworthy changes, in new conditions:
for the populace of the towns had increased, while the agricultural
population had diminished; agriculture had become profoundly modified;
the great landed properties had absorbed the little; the number of
proletaries and freedmen had increased, and the slaves had taken the
place of free labour. The military service was no longer considered by
the nobles as the first honour and the first duty. Religion, that
fundamental basis of the Republic, had lost its prestige. And, lastly,
the allies were weary of contributing to the greatness of the empire,
without participating in the rights of Roman citizens.[629] There were,
as we have seen, two peoples, quite distinct: the people of the allies
and subjects, and the people of Rome. The allies were always in a state
of inferiority; their contingents, more considerable than those of the
metropolis, received only half the pay of the latter, and were subjected
to bodily chastisement from which the soldiers of the legions were
exempted. Even in the triumphs, their cohorts, by way of humiliation,
followed, in the last rank and in silence, the chariot of the victor. It
was natural then that, penetrated with the feelings of their own dignity
and the services they had rendered, they should aspire to be treated as
equals. The Roman people, properly so named, occupying a limited
territory, from Cære to Cumæ, preserved all the pride of a privileged
class. It was composed of from about three to four hundred thousand
citizens,[630] divided into thirty five tribes, of which four only
belonged to the town, and the others to the country. In these last, it
is true, had been inscribed the inhabitants of the colonies and of
several towns of Italy, but the great majority of the Italiotes were
deprived of political rights, and at the very gates of Rome there still
remained disinherited cities, such as Tibur, Præneste, Signia, and
Norba.[631]

The richest citizens, in sharing among them the public domain, composed
of about two-thirds of the totality of the conquered territory, had
finished by getting nearly the whole into their own hands, either by
purchase from the small proprietors, or by forcibly expelling them; and
this occurred even beyond the frontiers of Italy.[632] At a later time,
when the Republic, mistress of the basin of the Mediterranean, received,
either under the name of contribution, or by exchange, an immense
quantity of corn from the most fertile countries, the cultivation of
wheat was neglected in Italy, and the fields were converted into
pastures and sumptuous parks. Meadows, indeed, which required fewer
hands, would naturally be preferred by the great proprietors. Not only
did the vast domains, _latifundia_, appertain to a small number, but the
knights had monopolised all the elements of riches of the country. Many
had retired from the ranks of the cavalry to become farmers-general
(_publicani_), bankers, and, almost alone, merchants. Formed, over the
whole face of the empire, into financial companies, they worked the
provinces, and formed a veritable money aristocracy, whose importance
was continually increasing, and which, in the political struggles, made
the balance incline to the side where it threw its influence.

Thus, not only was the wealth of the country in the hands of the
patrician and plebeian nobility, but the free men diminished incessantly
in numbers in the rural districts. If we believe Plutarch,[633] there
were no longer in Etruria, in 620, any but foreigners for tillers of the
soil and herdsmen, and everywhere slaves had multiplied to such a
degree, that, in Sicily alone, 200,000 took part in the revolt of
619.[634] In 650, the King of Bithynia declared himself unable to
furnish a military contingent, because all the young adults had been
carried away for slaves by Roman collectors.[635] In the great market of
Delos, 10,000 slaves were sold and embarked in one day for Italy.[636]

The excessive number of slaves was then a danger to society and a cause
of weakness to the State;[637] and there was the same inconvenience in
regard to the freedmen. Citizens since the time of Servius Tullius, but
without right of suffrage; free in fact, but remaining generally
attached to their old masters; physicians, artists, grammarians, they
were incapable, they and their children, of becoming senators, or of
forming part of the college of pontiffs, or of marrying a free woman, or
of serving in the legions, unless in case of extreme danger. Sometimes
admitted into the Roman communalty, sometimes rejected; veritable
mulattoes of ancient times, they participated in two natures, and bore
always the stigma of their origin.[638] Confined to the urban tribes,
they had, with the proletaries, augmented that part of the population
of Rome for which the conqueror of Carthage and Numantia often showed a
veritable disdain: “Silence!” he shouted one day, “you whom Italy does
not acknowledge for her children;” and as the noise still continued, he
proceeded, “Those whom I caused to be brought here in chains will not
frighten me because to-day their bonds have been broken.”[639] When the
people of the town assembled in the Forum without the presence of the
rural tribes, which were more independent, they were open to all
seductions, and to the most powerful of these--the money of the
candidates and the distributions of wheat at a reduced price. They were
also influenced by the mob of those deprived of political rights, when,
crowding the public place, as at the English _hustings_, they sought, by
their cries and gestures, to act on the minds of the citizens.

On another hand, proud of the deeds of their ancestors, the principal
families, in possession of the soil and of the power, desired to
preserve this double advantage without being obliged to show themselves
worthy of it; they seemed to disdain the severe education which had made
them capable of filling all offices,[640] so that it might be said that
there existed then at Rome an aristocracy without nobility, and a
democracy without people.

There were, then, injustices to redress, exigencies to satisfy, and
abuses to repress; for neither the sumptuary laws, nor those against
solicitation, nor the measures against the freedmen, were sufficient to
cure the diseases of society. It was necessary, as in the time of
Licinius Stolo (378), to have recourse to energetic measures--to give
more stability to power, confer the right of city on the peoples of
Italy, diminish the number of slaves, revise the titles to landed
property, distribute to the people the lands illegally acquired, and
thus give a new existence to the agricultural class.

All the men of eminence saw the evil and sought the remedy. Caius
Lælius, among others, the friend of Scipio Æmilianus, and probably at
his instigation, entertained the thought of proposing salutary reforms,
but was prevented by the fear of raising troubles.[641]


[Sidenote: Tiberius Gracchus (621).]

II. Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus alone dared to take a courageous
initiative. Illustrious by birth, remarkable for his physical advantages
as well as eloquence,[642] he was son of the Gracchus who was twice
consul, and of Cornelia, the daughter of Scipio Africanus.[643] At the
age of eighteen, Tiberius had been present, under the orders of his
brother-in-law, Scipio Æmilianus, at the ruin of Carthage, and was the
first to mount to the assault.[644] Questor of the Consul Mancinus in
Spain, he had contributed to the treaty of Numantia. Animated with the
love of virtue,[645] far from being dazzled by the splendour of the
moment, he foresaw the dangers of the future, and wished to prevent them
while there was still time. At the moment of his elevation to the
tribuneship, in 621, he took up again, with the approval of men of
eminence and philosophers of most distinction the project which had been
entertained by Scipio Æmilianus[646] to distribute the public domain
among the poor.[647] The people themselves demanded the concession with
great outcries, and the walls of Rome were daily covered with
inscriptions calling for it.[648]

Tiberius, in a speech to the people, pointed out eloquently all the
germs of destruction in the Roman power, and traced the picture of the
deplorable condition of the citizens spread over the territory of Italy
without an asylum in which to repose their bodies enfeebled by war,
after they had shed their blood for their country. He cited revolting
examples of the arbitrary conduct of certain magistrates, who had caused
innocent men to be put to death on the most futile pretexts.[649]

He then spoke with contempt of the slaves, of that restless, uncertain
class, invading the rural districts, useless for the recruitment of the
armies, dangerous to society, as the last insurrection in Sicily clearly
proved. He ended by proposing a law, which was simply a reproduction of
that of Licinius Stolo, that had fallen into disuse. Its object was to
withdraw from the nobility a portion of the lands of the domain which
they had unjustly seized. No landholder should retain more than five
hundred _jugera_ for himself and two hundred and fifty for each of his
sons. These lands should belong to them for ever; the part confiscated
should be divided into lots of thirty _jugera_ and farmed hereditarily,
either to Roman citizens, or to Italiote auxiliaries, on condition of a
small rent to the treasury, and with an express prohibition to alienate.
The proprietors were to be indemnified for the part of their lands which
they so lost. This project, which all the old writers judged to be just
and moderate, raised a tempest among the aristocracy. The Senate
rejected it, and, when the people were on the point of adopting it, the
tribune Octavius, gained over by the rich citizens,[650] opposed to it
his inflexible veto. Suddenly interrupted in his designs, Tiberius
embraced the resolution, as bold as it was contrary to the laws, of
obtaining a vote of the tribes to depose the tribune. These having
pronounced accordingly, the new law was published, and three triumvirs
appointed for carrying it into execution: they were, Tiberius, his
brother Caius, and his father-in-law Appius Claudius. Upon another
proposition, he obtained a decision that the money left by the King of
Pergamus to the Roman people should be employed for the expenses of
establishing those who were to receive the lands.[651]

The agrarian law had only passed by the assistance of the votes of the
country tribes.[652] Nevertheless, the popular party, in its enthusiasm,
carried Tiberius home in triumph, calling him not only the benefactor of
one city, but the father of all the peoples of Italy.

The possessors of the great domains, struck in their dearest interests,
were far from sharing in this joy. Not satisfied with having attempted
to carry off the urns at the time the law was voted, they plotted the
assassination of Tiberius.[653] In fact, as Machiavelli says: “Men value
riches even more than honours, and the obstinacy of the Roman
aristocracy in defending its possessions constrained the people to have
recourse to extremities.”[654]

The chiefs of the opposition, great landholders, such as the tribune
Octavius and Scipio Nasica, attacked in every possible way the author of
the law which despoiled them, and one day the senator Pompeius went so
far as to say that the King of Pergamus had sent Tiberius a robe of
purple and the diadem, signs of the tribune’s future royalty.[655] The
latter, in self-defence, had recourse to proposals inspired rather by
the desire of a vain popularity than the general interest. The struggle
became daily more and more embittered, and his friends persuaded him to
secure his re-election as tribune, in order that the inviolability of
his office might afford a refuge against the attacks of his enemies.
The people was convoked; but the most substantial support of Tiberius
failed him: the country people, retained by the harvest, did not obey
the call.[656]

Tiberius only sought a reform, and, unknowingly, he had commenced a
revolution. But to accomplish this he did not possess all the necessary
qualities. A singular mixture of gentleness and audacity, he unchained
the tempest, but dared not launch the thunderbolt. Surrounded by his
adherents, he walked to the comitia with more appearance of resignation
than assurance. The tribes, assembled in the Capitol, were beginning to
give their votes, when the senator Fulvius Flaccus came to warn Tiberius
that, in the meeting of the Senate, the rich, surrounded by their
slaves, had resolved on his destruction. This information produced a
considerable agitation round the tribune, and those at a distance
demanding the cause of the tumult, Tiberius raised his hand to his head
to explain by signs the danger which threatened him.[657] Then his
enemies hurried to the Senate, and, giving their own interpretation to
his gesture, denounced him as aiming at the kingly power. The Senate,
preceded by the sovereign pontiff, Scipio Nasica, repaired to the
Capitol. The mob of Tiberius was dispersed, and he himself was slain,
with three hundred of his friends, near the gate of the sacred
inclosure. All his partisans were hunted out, and underwent the same
fate, and among others Diophanes the rhetorician.

The man had succumbed, but the cause remained standing, and public
opinion forced the Senate to discontinue its opposition to the execution
of the agrarian law, to substitute for Tiberius, as commissioner for the
partition of lands, Publius Crassus, an ally of the Gracchi; the people
commiserated the fate of the victims and cursed the murderers. Scipio
Nasica gained nothing by his triumph; to withdraw him from the general
resentment he was sent to Asia, where he died miserably.

The execution of the law encountered, nevertheless, many obstacles. The
limits of the _ager publicus_ had never been well defined; few
title-deeds existed, and those which could be produced were often
unintelligible. The value of this property, too, had changed
prodigiously. It was necessary to indemnify those who had cleared
uncultivated grounds or made improvements. Most of the lots contained
religious buildings and sepulchres. According to the antique notions, it
was a sacrilege to give them any other destination. The possessors of
the _ager publicus_, supported by the Senate and the equestrian order,
made the most of all these difficulties. The Italiotes showed no less
ardour in protesting against the partition of the lands, knowing well
that it would be less favourable to them than to the Romans.

The struggles which had preceded had so excited men’s passions, that
each party, as the opportunity occurred, presented laws the most
opposite to each other. At one time, on the motion of the tribune Junius
Pennus, it is a question of expelling all foreigners from Rome (628), in
order to deprive the party of the people of auxiliaries; at another, on
that of M. Fulvius, the right of city is claimed in favour of the
Italiotes (629). This demand leads to disturbances: it is rejected, and
the Senate, to rid itself of Fulvius, sends him against the Salluvii,
who were threatening Massilia. But already the allies themselves,
impatient at seeing their rights incessantly despised, were attempting
to secure them by force, and the Latin colony of Fregellæ revolts first;
but it is soon destroyed utterly by the prætor M. Opimius (629). The
rigour of this act of repression was calculated to intimidate the other
towns; but there are questions which must be resolved, and cannot be put
down. The cause which has been vanquished ten years is on the point of
finding in the brother of Tiberius Gracchus a new champion.


[Sidenote: Caius Gracchus (631).]

III. Caius Gracchus, indeed, nourished in his heart, as a sacred
deposit, the ideas of his brother and the desire to revenge him. After
serving in twelve campaigns, he returned to Rome to solicit the
tribuneship. On his arrival, the nobles trembled, and, to combat his
ascendency, they accused him of being concerned in the insurrection of
Fregellæ; but his name brought him numerous sympathies. On the day of
his election, a vast crowd of citizens arrived in Rome from all parts of
Italy, and so great was the confluence that the Campus Martius could not
hold them; and many gave their votes even from the roofs.[658] Invested
with the tribunitian power, Gracchus made use of it to submit to the
sanction of the people several laws; some directed merely against the
enemies of his brother;[659] others, of great political meaning, which
require more particular notice.

First, the importance of the tribunes was increased by the faculty of
being re-elected indefinitely,[660] which tended to give a character of
permanence to functions which were already so preponderant. Next, the
law _frumentaria_, by turn carried into effect and abandoned,[661]
gained him adherents by his granting without distinction, to all the
poor citizens, the monthly distribution of a certain quantity of wheat;
and for this purpose vast public granaries were constructed.[662] The
shortening of the time of service of the soldiers,[663] the prohibition
to enrol them under seventeen years of age, and the payment by the
treasury of their equipment, which was previously deducted from their
pay, gained him the favour of the army. The establishment of new tolls
(_portoria_) augmented the resources of the State; new colonies were
founded,[664] not only in Italy, but in the possessions out of the
peninsula.[665] The agrarian law, which was connected with the
establishment of these colonies, was confirmed, probably with the view
of restoring to the commissioners charged with its execution their
judicial powers, which had fallen into disuse.[666] Long and wide roads,
starting from Rome, placed the metropolis in easy communication with the
different countries of Italy.[667]

Down to this time, the appointments to the provinces had taken place
after the consular elections, which allowed the Senate to distribute
the great commands nearly according to its own convenience; it was now
arranged, in order to defeat the calculations of ambition and cupidity,
that the Senate should assign, before the election of the consuls, the
provinces which they should administrate.[668] To elevate the title of
Roman citizen, the dispositions of the law Porcia were put in force
again, and it was forbidden not only to pronounce capital
punishment[669] on a Roman citizen, except in case of high treason
(_perduellio_), but even for this offence to apply it without the
ratification of the people. It was equivalent to repealing the law of
provocation, the principle of which had been inscribed in the laws of
the Twelve Tables.

C. Gracchus attempted still more in the cause of equality. He proposed
to confer the right of city on the allies who enjoyed the Latin law, and
even to extend this benefit to all the inhabitants of Italy.[670] He
wished that in the comitia all classes should be admitted without
distinction to draw lots for the century called _prærogativa_, or which
had precedency in voting;[671] this “prerogative” had in fact a great
influence, because the suffrage of the first voters was regarded as a
divine presage; but these propositions were rejected. Desirous of
diminishing the power of the Senate, Gracchus resolved to oppose to it
the knights, whose importance he increased by new attributes. He caused
a law to be passed which authorised the censor to let to farm, in Asia,
the lands taken from the inhabitants of the conquered towns.[672] The
knights then took in farm the rents and tithes of those countries, of
which the soil belonged of right to the Roman people;[673] the old
proprietors were reduced to the condition of simple tenants. Finally,
Caius gave the knights a share in the judiciary powers, exercised
exclusively by the Senate, the venality of which had excited public
contempt.[674] Three hundred knights were joined with three hundred
senators, and the cognisance of all actions at law thus devolved upon
six hundred judges.[675] These measures gained for him the good-will of
an order which, hostile hitherto to the popular party, had contributed
to the failure of the projects of Tiberius Gracchus.

The tribune’s success was immense; his popularity became so great that
the people surrendered to him the right of naming the three hundred
knights among whom the judges were to be chosen, and his simple
recommendation was enough to secure the election of Fannius, one of his
partisans, to the consulship. Desiring further to show his spirit of
justice towards the provinces, he sent back to Spain the wheat
arbitrarily carried away from the inhabitants by the proprætor Fabius.
The tribunes had thus, at that epoch, a veritable omnipotence: they had
charge of the great works; disposed of the public revenues; dictated, so
to say, the election of the consuls; controlled the acts of the
governors of provinces; proposed the laws, and saw to their execution.

These measures taken together, from the circumstance that they were
favourable to a great number of interests, calmed for some time the
ardour of the opposition, and reduced it to silence. Even the Senate
became reconciled in appearance with Caius Gracchus; but under the
surface the feeling of hatred still existed, and another tribune was
raised up against him, Livius Drusus, whose mission was to propose
measures destined to restore to the Senate the affection of the people.
C. Gracchus had designed that the allies enjoying Latin rights should be
admitted to the right of city. Drusus caused it to be declared that,
like the Roman citizens, they should no longer be subject to be beaten
with rods. According to the law of the Gracchi, the lands distributed to
the poor citizens were burdened with a small rent for the profit of the
public treasury; Drusus freed them from it.[676] In rivalry to the
agrarian law, he obtained the creation of twelve colonies of three
thousand citizens each. Lastly, it was thought necessary to remove Caius
Gracchus himself out of the way, by appointing him to lead to Carthage,
to raise it from its ruins, the colony of six thousand individuals,
taken from all parts of Italy,[677] of which he had obtained the
establishment.

During his absence, things took an entirely new turn. If, on the one
hand, the measures of Drusus had satisfied a part of the people, on the
other, Fulvius, the friend of Caius, a man of excessive zeal,
compromised his cause by dangerous exaggerations. Opimius, the bitter
enemy of the Gracchi, offered himself for the consulship. Informed of
these different intrigues, Caius returned suddenly to Rome to solicit a
third renewal of the tribuneship. He failed, while Opimius, elected
consul, with the prospect of combating a party so redoubtable to the
nobles, caused all citizens who were not Romans to be banished from the
town, and, under a religious pretext, attempted to obtain the revocation
of the decree relating to the colony of Carthage. When the day of
deliberation arrived, two parties occupied the Capitol at an early hour.

The Senate, in consideration of the gravity of the circumstances and in
the interest of the public safety, invested the consul with
extraordinary powers, declaring that it was necessary to exterminate
tyrants--a treacherous qualification always employed against the
defenders of the people, and, in order to make more sure of triumph,
they had recourse to foreign troops. The Consul Opimius, at the head of
a body of Cretan archers, easily put to the rout a tumultuous assembly.
Caius took flight, and, finding himself pursued, slew himself. Fulvius
underwent a similar fate. The head of the tribune was carried in
triumph. Three thousand men were thrown into prison and strangled. The
agrarian laws and the emancipation of Italy ceased, for some time, to
torment the Senate.

Such was the fate of the Gracchi, two men who had at heart to reform the
laws of their country, and who fell victims to selfish interests and
prejudices still too powerful. “They perished,” says Appian,[678]
“because they employed violence in the execution of an excellent
measure.”[679] In fact, in a State where legal forms had been respected
for four hundred years, it was necessary either to observe them
faithfully, or to have an army at command.

Yet the work of the Gracchi did not die with them. Several of their laws
continued long to subsist. The agrarian law was executed in part,
inasmuch as, at a subsequent period, the nobles bought back the portions
of lands which had been taken from them,[680] and its effects were only
destroyed at the end of fifteen years. Implicated in the acts of
corruption imputed to Jugurtha, of which we shall soon have to speak,
the Consul Opimius had the same fate as Scipio Nasica, and a no less
miserable end. It is curious to see two men, each vanquisher of a
sedition, terminate their lives in a foreign land, exposed to the hatred
and contempt of their fellow-citizens. Yet the reason is natural: they
combated with arms ideas which arms could not destroy. When, in the
midst of general prosperity, dangerous Utopias spring up, without root
in the country, the slightest employment of force extinguishes them;
but, on the contrary, when society, deeply tormented by real and
imperious needs, requires reform, the success of the most violent
repression is but momentaneous: the ideas repressed appear again
incessantly, and, like the fabled hydra, for one head struck off a
hundred others grow up in its place.


[Sidenote: War of Jugurtha (637).]

IV. An arrogant oligarchy had triumphed in Rome over the popular party:
will it have at least the energy to raise again the honour of the Roman
name abroad? Such will not be the case: events, of which Africa is on
the point of becoming the theatre, will show the baseness of these men
who sought to govern the world by repudiating the virtues of their
ancestors.

Jugurtha, natural son of Mastanabal, king of Numidia, by a concubine,
had distinguished himself in the Roman legions at the siege of Numantia.
Reckoning on the favour he enjoyed at Rome, he had resolved to seize the
inheritance of Micipsa, to the prejudice of the two legitimate children,
Hiempsal and Adherbal. The first was murdered by his orders, and, in
spite of this crime, Jugurtha had succeeded in corrupting the Roman
commissioners charged with the task of dividing the kingdom between him
and Adherbal, and in obtaining from them the larger part. But soon
master of the whole country by force of arms, he put Adherbal to death
also. The Senate sent against Jugurtha the consul Bestia Calpurnius,
who, soon bribed as the commissioners had been, concluded a disgraceful
peace. So many infamous deeds could not remain in the shade. The consul,
on his return, was attacked by C. Memmius, who, in forcing Jugurtha to
come to Rome to give an account of himself, seized the occasion of
reminding his hearers of the grievances of the people and of the
scandalous conduct of the nobles, in the following words:--

“After the assassination of Tiberius Gracchus, who, according to the
nobles, aspired to the kingly power, the Roman people saw itself exposed
to their vigorous persecutions. Similarly, after the murder of Caius
Gracchus and Marcus Fulvius, how many people of your order have they not
caused to be imprisoned? At either of these epochs it was not the law,
but their caprice alone, which put an end to the massacres. Moreover, I
acknowledge that _to restore to the people their rights, is to aspire to
the kingly power_; and we must regard as legitimate all vengeance
obtained by the blood of the citizens.... In these last years you
groaned in secret to see the public treasure wasted, the kings and free
people made the tributaries of a few nobles--of those who alone are in
possession of splendid dignities and great riches. Nevertheless, it is
too little for them to be able with impunity to commit such crimes; they
have finished by delivering to the enemies of the State your laws, the
dignity of your empire, and all that is sacred in the eyes of gods and
men.... But who are they, then, those who have invaded the Republic?
Villains covered with blood, devoured by a monstrous cupidity, the most
criminal, and at the same time the most arrogant, of men. For them, good
faith, honour, religion, and virtue, are, like vice, objects of traffic.
Some have put to death tribunes of the people; others have commenced
unjust proceedings against you; most of them have shed your blood; and
these excesses are their safeguard: the further they have gone in the
course of their crimes, the more they feel themselves in safety.... Ah!
could you count upon a sincere reconciliation with them? They seek to
rule over you, you seek to be free; it is their will to oppress you, you
resist oppression; lastly, they treat your allies as enemies, your
enemies as allies.”[681]

He then reminded his audience of all Jugurtha’s crimes. The latter rose
to justify himself; but the tribune C. Bæbius, with whom he was in
league, ordered the king to keep silence. The Numidian was on the point
of gathering the fruit of such an accumulation of corruptions, when,
having caused a dangerous rival, Massiva, the grandson of Masinissa, to
be assassinated at Rome, he became the object of public reprobation, and
was compelled to return to Africa. War then re-commences; the consul
Albinus lets it drag on in length. Recalled to Rome to hold the comitia,
he entrusts the command to his brother, the proprætor Aulus, whose army,
soon seduced by Jugurtha, lets itself be surrounded, and is under the
necessity of making a dishonourable capitulation. The indignation at
Rome is at its height. On the proposal of a tribune, an inquiry is
opened against all the presumed accomplices in the misdeeds of
Jugurtha; they were punished, and, as often happens under such
circumstances, the vengeance of the people passed the limits of justice.
At last, after warm debates, an honourable man is chosen, Metellus,
belonging to the faction of the nobles, and he is charged with the war
in Africa. Public opinion, by forcing the Senate to punish corruption,
had triumphed over bad passions; and “it was the first time,” says
Sallust, “that the people put a bridle on the tyrannical pride of the
nobility.”[682]


[Sidenote: Marius (647).]

V. The Gracchi had made themselves, so to say, the civil champions of
the popular cause: Marius became its stern soldier. Born of an obscure
family, bred in camps, having arrived by his courage at high grades, he
had the roughness and the ambition of the class which feels itself
oppressed. A great captain, but a partisan in spirit, naturally inclined
to good and to justice, he became, towards the end of his life, through
love of power, cruel and inexorable.[683]

After having distinguished himself at the siege of Numantia, he was
elected tribune of the people, and displayed in that office a great
impartiality.[684] It was the first step of his fortune. Having become
the lieutenant of Metellus, in the war against Jugurtha he sought to
supplant his general; and, at a later period, succeeded in allying
himself to an illustrious family by marrying Julia, paternal aunt of the
great Cæsar. Guided by his instinct or intelligence, he had learnt that
beneath the official people there existed a people of proletaries and of
allies which demanded a consideration in the State.

Having reached the consulship through his high military reputation,
backed by intrigues, he was charged with the war of Numidia, and, before
his departure, expressed with energy, in an address to the people, the
rancours and principles of the democratic party of that time.

“You have charged me,” he said, “with the war against Jugurtha; the
nobility is irritated at your choice: but why do you not change your
decree, by going to seek for this expedition a man among that crowd of
nobles, of old lineage, who counts many ancestors, but not a single
campaign?... It is true that he would have to take among the people an
adviser who could teach him his business. With these proud patricians
compare Marius, a new man. What they have heard related by others, what
they have read of, I have seen in part, I have in part done.... They
reproach me with the obscurity of my birth and fortune; I reproach them
with their cowardice and personal infamy. Nature, our common mother, has
made all men equal, and the bravest is the most noble.... If they think
they are justified in despising me, let them also despise their
ancestors, ennobled like me by their personal merits.... And is it not
more worthy to be oneself the author of his name than to degrade that
which has been transmitted to you?

“I cannot, to justify your confidence, make a display of images, nor
boast of the triumphs or consulships of my ancestors; but I can produce,
if necessary, javelins, a standard, the trappings of war, twenty other
military gifts, besides the scars which furrow my breast. These are my
images, these my nobility, not left by inheritance, but won for myself
by great personal labours and perils.”[685]

After this oration, in which is revealed the legitimate ardour of those
who, in all aristocratic countries, demand equality, Marius, contrary to
the ancient system, enrolled more proletaries than citizens. The
veterans also crowded under his standards. He conducted the war of
Africa with skill; but he was robbed of part of his glory by his
questor, P. Cornelius Sylla. This man, called soon afterwards to play so
great a part, sprung from an illustrious patrician family, ambitious,
ardent, full of boldness and confidence in himself, recoiled before no
obstacle. The successes, which cost so many efforts to Marius, seemed to
come of themselves to Sylla. Marius defeated the Numidian prince, but,
by an adventurous act of boldness, Sylla received his submission, and
ended the war. From that time began, between the proconsul and his young
questor, a rivalry which, in time, was changed into violent hatred. They
became, one, the champion of the democracy; the other, the hope of the
oligarchic faction. So the Senate extolled beyond measure Metellus and
Sylla, in order that the people should not consider Marius as the first
of the generals.[686] The gravity of events soon baffled this
manœuvre.

While Marius was concluding the war with Jugurtha, a great danger
threatened Italy. Since 641, an immense migration of barbarians had
moved through Illyria into Cisalpine Gaul, and had defeated, at Noreia
(in Carniola) the consul Papirius Carbo. They were the Cimbri, and all
their peculiarities, manners, language, habits of pillage, and
adventures, attested their relationship to the Gauls.[687] In their
passage through Rhætia into the country of the Helvetii, they dragged
with them different peoples, and during some years devastated Gaul;
returned in 645 to the neighbourhood of the Roman province, they
demanded of the Republic lands to settle in. The consular army sent to
meet them was defeated, and they invaded the province itself. The
Tigurini (647), a people of Helvetia, issuing from their mountains, slew
the consul L. Cassius, and made his army pass under the yoke. It was
only a prelude to greater disasters. A third invasion of the Cimbri,
followed by two new defeats in 649, on the banks of the Rhine, excites
the keenest apprehensions, and points to Marius as the only man capable
of saving Italy; the nobles, moreover, in presence of this great danger,
sought no longer to seize the power.[688] Marius was, contrary to the
law, named a second time consul, in 650, and charged with the war in
Gaul.

This great captain laboured during several years to restore military
discipline, practise his troops, and familiarise them with their new
enemies, whose aspect filled them with terror. Marius, considered
indispensable, was re-elected from year to year; from 650 to 654, he was
five times elected consul, and beat the Cimbri, united with the Ambrones
and Teutones, near Aquæ Sextiæ (_Aix_), re-passed into Italy, and
exterminated, near Vercellæ, the Cimbri who had escaped from the last
battle and those whom the Celtiberians had driven back from Spain. These
immense butcheries, these massacres of whole peoples, removed for some
time the barbarians from the frontiers of the Republic.

Consul for the sixth time (654), the saviour of Rome and Italy, by a
generous deference, would not triumph without his colleague
Catulus,[689] and did not hesitate to exceed his powers in granting to
two auxiliary cohorts of Cameria, who had distinguished themselves, the
rights of city.[690] But his glory was obscured by culpable intrigues.
Associated with the most turbulent chiefs of the democratic party, he
excited them to revolt, and sacrificed them as soon as he saw that they
could not succeed. When governments repulse the legitimate wishes of the
people and true ideas, then factious men seize on them as a powerful arm
to serve their passions and personal interests; the Senate having
rejected all the proposals of reform, those who sought to raise
disorders found in them a pretext and support in their perverse
projects. L. Appuleius Saturninus, one of Marius’s creatures, and
Glaucia, a fellow of loose manners, were guilty of incredible
violences. The first revived the agrarian laws of the Gracchi, and went
beyond them in proposing the partition of the lands taken from the
Cimbri; a measure which he sought to impose by terror and murder. In the
troubles which broke out at the election of the consuls for 655, the
urban tribes came to blows with the country tribes. In the midst of the
tumult, Saturninus, followed by a troop of desperadoes, made himself
master of the Capitol, and fortified himself in it. Charged, in his
quality of consul, with the repression of sedition, Marius first
favoured it by an intentional inaction; then, seeing all good citizens
run to arms, and the factious without support, even deserted by the
urban plebeians, he placed himself at the head of some troops, and
occupied the avenues to the Capitol. From the first moment of the
attack, the rebels threw down their arms and demanded quarter. Marius
left them to be massacred by the people, as though he had wished that
the secret of the sedition might die with them.

The question of Italian emancipation was not foreign to the revolt of
Saturninus. It is certain that the claims of the Italiotes, rejected
after the death of C. Gracchus, and then adjourned at the approach of
the Cimbri, who threatened all the peninsula with one common
catastrophe, were renewed with more earnestness than ever after the
defeat of the barbarians. The earnestness of the allies to come to the
succour of Italy, the courage which they had shown in the battle-fields
of Aquæ Sextiæ and Vercellæ, gave them new claims to become Romans. Yet,
if some prudent politicians believed that the time was arrived for
yielding to the wishes of the Italiotes, a numerous and powerful party
revolted at the idea of such a concession. The more the privileges of
the citizens became extended, the more the Roman pride resisted the
thought of having sharers in them. M. Livius Drusus (663), tribune of
the people, son of the Drusus already mentioned, having under his
command in Rome an immense body of clients, the acknowledged patron of
all the Italiote cities, dared to attempt this salutary reform, and had
nearly carried it by force of party. He was not ignorant that there was
already in existence a formidable confederacy of the peoples of the
south and east of Italy, and that more than once their chiefs had
meditated a general insurrection. Drusus, trusting in their projects,
had had the art to restrain them and to obtain from them the promise of
a blind obedience. The success of the tribune seemed certain. The people
were gained over by distributions of wheat and concessions of lands; the
Senate, intimidated, appeared to have become powerless, when, a few days
before the vote of the tribes, Drusus was assassinated. All Italy
accused the senators of this crime, and war became inevitable.

The obstinate refusal of the Romans to share with the Italiotes all
their political rights, had been long a cause of political agitation.
More than two hundred years before, the war of the Latins and the revolt
of the inhabitants of Campania, after the battle of Cannæ, had no other
motives. About the same time (536), Spurius Carvilius proposed to admit
into the Senate two senators taken from each people in Latium. “The
assembly,” says Livy,[691] “burst into a murmur of indignation, and
Manlius, raising his voice over the others, declared that there existed
still a descendant of that consul who once, in the Capitol, threatened
to kill with his own hand the first Latin he should see in the curia;” a
striking proof of this secular resistance of the Roman aristocracy to
everything which might threaten its supremacy. But, after this epoch,
the ideas of equality had assumed a power which it was impossible to
mistake.


[Sidenote: Wars of the Allies (663).]

VI. This civil war, which was called the _War of Allies_,[692] showed
once more the impotence of material force against the legitimate
aspirations of peoples, and it covered the country with blood and ruins.
Three hundred thousand citizens, the choice of the nation, perished on
the field of battle.[693] Rome had the superiority, it is true, and yet
it was the cause of the vanquished which triumphed, since, after the
war, the only object of which was the assertion of the rights of
citizenship, these rights were granted to most of the peoples of Italy.
Sylla subsequently restricted them, and we may be convinced, by
examining the different censuses, that the entire emancipation was only
accomplished under Cæsar.[694]

The revolt burst out fortuitously before the day fixed. It was provoked
by the violence of a Roman magistrate, who was massacred by the
inhabitants of Asculum; but all was ready for an insurrection, which
was not long before it became general. The allies had a secret
government, chiefs appointed, and an army organised. At the head of the
peoples confederated against Rome were distinguished the Marsi and the
Samnites; the first excited rather by a feeling of national pride than
by the memory of injuries to be revenged; the second, on the contrary,
by the hatred which they had vowed against the Romans during long
struggles for their independence--struggles renewed on the invasion of
Hannibal. Both shared the honour of the supreme command. It appears,
moreover, that the system of government adopted by the confederation was
a copy of the Roman institutions. To substitute Italy for Rome, and to
replace the denomination of a single town by that of a great people, was
the avowed aim of the new league. A Senate was named, or rather a Diet,
in which each city had its representatives; they elected two consuls, Q.
Pompædius Silo, a Marsian, and C. Papius Mutilus, a Samnite. For their
capital, they chose Corfinium, the name of which was changed to that of
_Italia_, or _Vitelia_, which, in the Oscan language, spoken by a part
of the peoples of Southern Italy, had the same signification.[695]

The allies were wanting neither in skilful generals nor in brave and
experienced soldiers; in the two camps, the same arms, the same
discipline. The war, commenced at the end of the year 663, was pursued
on both sides with the utmost animosity. It extended through Central
Italy, from the north to the south, from Firmum (_Fermo_) to Grumentum,
in Lucania, and from east to west from Cannæ to the Liris. The battles
were sanguinary, and often indecisive, and, on both sides, the losses
were so considerable, that it soon became necessary to enrol the
freedmen, and even the slaves.

The allies obtained at first brilliant successes. Marius had the glory
of arresting their progress, although he had only troops demoralised by
reverses. Fortune, this time again, served Sylla better; conqueror
wherever he appeared, he sullied his exploits by horrible cruelties to
the Samnites, whom he seemed to have undertaken to destroy rather than
to subdue. The Senate displayed more humanity, or more policy, in
granting spontaneously the right of Roman city to all the allies who
remained faithful to the Republic, and in promising it to all those who
should lay down their arms. It treated in the same manner the Cisalpine
Gauls; as to their neighbours on the left bank of the Po, it conferred
upon them the right of Latium. This wise measure divided the
confederates;[696] the greater part submitted. The Samnites, almost
alone, continued to fight in their mountains with the fury of despair.
The emancipation of Italy was accompanied, nevertheless, with a
restrictive measure which was designed to preserve to the Romans the
preponderance in the comitia. To the thirty-five old tribes, eight new
ones were added, in which all the Italiotes were inscribed; and, as the
votes were reckoned by tribes, and not by head, it is evident that the
influence of the new citizens must have been nearly null.[697]

Etruria had taken no part in the Social War. The nobility was devoted to
Rome, and the people lived in a condition approximating to bondage. The
law Julia, which gave to the Italiotes the right of Roman city, and
which took its name from its author, the consul L. Julius Cæsar,
produced among the Etruscans a complete revolution. It was welcomed with
enthusiasm.

While Italy was in flames, Mithridates VI., king of Pontus, determined
to take advantage of the weakness of the Republic to aggrandise himself.
In 664, he invaded Bithynia and Cappadocia, and expelled the kings,
allies of Rome. At the same time he entered into communication with the
Samnites, to whom he promised subsidies and soldiers. Such was the
hatred then inspired by the Romans in foreign countries, that an order
of Mithridates was sufficient to raise the province of Asia, where, in
one day, eighty thousand Romans were massacred.[698] At this time the
Social War was already approaching its end. With the exception of
Samnium, all Italy was subdued, and the Senate could turn its attention
to the distant provinces.


[Sidenote: Sylla (666).]

VII. Sylla, appointed consul in recompense for his services, was charged
with the task of chastising Mithridates. While he was preparing for this
mission, the tribune of the people, P. Sulpicius, had formed a powerful
party. A remarkable man, though without scruples, he had the qualities
and the defects of most of those who played a part in these epochs of
dissension.[699] Escorted by six hundred Roman knights, whom he called
the Anti-Senate,[700] he sold publicly the right of citizen to freedmen
and foreigners, and received the price on tables raised in the middle of
the public place.[701] He caused a plebiscitum to be passed to put an
end to the subterfuge of the law Julia, which, by an illusory
re-partition, cheated the Italiotes of the very rights which it seemed
to accord to them; and instead of maintaining them in the eight new
tribes, he caused them to be inscribed in the thirty-five old ones. The
measure was not adopted without warm discussions; but Sulpicius was
supported by all the new citizens, together with the democratic faction
and Marius. A riot carried the vote and Sylla, threatened with death,
was obliged to take refuge in the house of Marius, and hastily quit
Rome. Master of the town, Sulpicius showed the influences he obeyed, by
causing to be given to the aged Marius the province of Asia, and the
command of the expedition against Mithridates. But Sylla had his army in
Campania, and was determined to support his own claims. While the
faction of Marius, in the town, indulged in acts of violence against the
contrary faction, the soldiers of Sylla were irritated at seeing the
legions of his rival likely to snatch from them the rich booty which
Asia promised; and they swore to avenge their chief. Sylla placed
himself at their head, and marched from Nola upon Rome, with his
colleague, Pompeius Rufus, who had just joined him. The greater part of
the superior officers dared not follow him, so great was still the
prestige of the eternal city.[702] In vain deputations are addressed to
him; he marches onwards, and penetrates into the streets of Rome.
Assailed by the inhabitants, and attacked by Marius and Sulpicius, he
triumphs only by dint of boldness and energy. It was the first time that
a general, entering Rome as a conqueror, had seized the power by force
of arms.

Sylla restored order, prevented pillage, convoked the assembly of the
people, justified his conduct, and, wishing to secure for his party the
preponderance in the public deliberations, he recalled to force the old
custom of requiring the previous assent of the Senate before the
presentation of a law. The comitia by centuries were substituted for
the comitia by tribes, to which was left only the election of the
inferior magistrates.[703] Sylla caused Sulpicius to be put to death,
and abrogated his decrees; and he set a price on the head of Marius,
forgetting that he had himself, a short time before, found a refuge in
the house of his rival. He proscribed the chiefs of the democratic
faction, but most of them had fled before he entered Rome. Marius and
his son had reached Africa through a thousand dangers. This revolution
appears not to have been sanguinary, and, with the exception of
Sulpicius, the historians of the time mention no considerable person as
having been put to death. The terror inspired at first by Sylla lasted
no long time. Reprobation of his acts was shown both in the Senate and
among the people, who seized every opportunity to mark their discontent.
Sylla was to resume the command of the army of Asia, and that of the
army of Italy had fallen to Pompeius. The massacre of this latter by his
own soldiers made the future dictator feel how insecure was his power;
he sought to put a stop to the opposition to which he was exposed by
accepting as a candidate at the consular comitia L. Cornelius Cinna, a
known partisan of Marius, taking care, however, to exact from him a
solemn oath of fidelity. But Cinna, once elected, held none of his
engagements, and the other consul, Cn. Octavius, had neither the
authority nor the energy necessary to balance the influence of his
colleague.

Sylla, after presiding at the consular comitia, went in all haste to
Capua to take the command of his troops, whom he led into Greece against
the lieutenants of Mithridates. Cinna determined to execute the law of
Sulpicius, which assimilated the new citizens to the old ones;[704] he
demanded at the same time the return of the exiles, and made an appeal
to the slaves. Immediately the Senate, and even the tribunes of the
people, pronounced against him. He was declared deposed from the
consulate. “A merited disgrace,” says Paterculus, “but a dangerous
precedent.”[705] Driven from Rome, he hurried to Nola to demand an
asylum of the Samnites, who were still in arms. Thence he went to sound
the temper of the Roman army employed to observe Samnium, and, once
assured of the dispositions of the soldiers in his favour, he penetrated
into their camp, demanding protection against his enemies. His speeches
and promises seduced the legions: they chose Cinna for their chief by
acclamation, and followed him without hesitating. Meanwhile two
lieutenants of Marius, Q. Sertorius and Cn. Papirius Carbo, both exiled
by Sylla, proceeded to levy troops in the north of Italy; and the aged
Marius landed in Etruria, where his presence was immediately followed by
an insurrection. The Etruscan peasants accused the Senate as the cause
of all their sufferings; and the enemy of the nobles and the rich
appeared to them as an avenger sent by the gods. In ranging themselves
under his banner, they believed that they were on the way with him to
the pillage of the eternal city.

War was on the point of re-commencing, and this time Romans and
Italiotes marched united against Rome. From the north, Marius,
Sertorius, and Carbo were advancing with considerable forces. Cinna,
master of Campania, was penetrating into Latium, while a Samnite army
invaded it on the other side. To these five armies the Senate could
oppose but one; that of Cn. Pompeius Strabo, an able general, but an
intriguing politician, who hoped to raise himself under favour of the
disorder. Quitting his cantonments in Apulia, he had arrived, by forced
marches, under the walls of Rome, seeking either to sell his services to
the Senate or to effect a conciliation with Marius. He soon saw that the
insurgents were strong enough to do without him. His soldiers, raised in
the Picenum and in the country of the Marsi, refused to fight for the
Senate against their old confederates, and would have abandoned their
general but for the courage and presence of mind of his son, a youth of
twenty years of age, the same who subsequently was the great Pompey. One
day the legionaries, snatching their ensigns, threatened to desert in
mass: young Pompey laid himself across the gateway of the camp, and
challenged them to pass over his body.[706] Death delivered Pompeius
Strabo from the shame of being present at an inevitable catastrophe.
According to some authors, he sank under the attacks of an epidemic
disease; according to others, he was struck by lightning in the very
midst of his camp. Deprived of its chief, his army passed over to the
enemy; the Senate was without defenders, and the populace rose against
it: Rome opened her gates to Cinna and Marius.

The conquerors were without pity in putting to death, often with
refinements in cruelty unknown to the Romans, the partisans of the
aristocratic faction who had fallen into their hands. During several
days, the slaves, whom Cinna had restored to liberty, gave themselves up
to every excess. Sertorius, the only one of the chiefs of the democratic
party who had some feelings of justice, made an example of these
wretches, and massacred nearly four thousand of them.[707]

Marius and Cinna had proclaimed, as they advanced upon Rome in arms,
that their aim was to assure to the Italiotes the entire enjoyment of
the rights of Roman city; they declared themselves both consuls for the
year 668. Their power was too considerable to be contested, for the new
citizens furnished them with a contingent of thirty legions, or about
150,000 men.[708] Marius died suddenly thirteen days after entering upon
office, and the democratic party lost in him the only man who still
preserved his prestige. A fact which arose out of his funeral, paints
the manners of the epoch, and the character of the revolution which had
just been effected. An extraordinary sacrifice was wanted for his tomb:
the pontiff Q. Mucius Scævola, one of the most respectable old men of
the nobility, was chosen as the victim. Conducted in pomp before the
funeral pile of the conqueror of the Cimbri, he was struck by the
sacrificer, who, with an inexperienced hand, plunged the knife into his
throat without killing him. Restored to life, Scævola was cited in
judgment, by a tribune of the people, for not having received the blow
_fairly_.[709]

While Rome and all Italy were plunged in this fearful anarchy, Sylla
drove out of Greece the generals of Mithridates VI., and gained two
great battles at Chæronea (668) and Orchomenus (669). He was still in
Bœotia, when Valerius Flaccus, sent by Cinna to replace him, landed
in Greece, penetrated into Thessaly, and thence passed into Asia. Sylla
followed him thither immediately, in haste to conclude with the King of
Pontus an arrangement which would enable him to lead his army back into
Italy. Circumstances were favourable. Mithridates had need to repair his
losses, and he found himself in presence of a new enemy, the lieutenant
of Valerius Flaccus, the fierce Flavius Fimbria, who, having by the
murder of his general become head of the army of Asia, had seized upon
Pergamus. Mithridates subscribed to the conditions imposed by Sylla; he
restored all the provinces of which he had taken possession, and gave
plate and money. Sylla then advanced into Lydia against Fimbria; but the
latter, at the approach of the victor of Chæronea, could not restrain
his soldiers. His whole army disbanded and passed over to Sylla.
Threatened by his rival, the murderer of Flaccus was driven to slay
himself. Nothing now stood in the way of Sylla’s projects on Italy, and
he prepared to make his enemies at Rome pay dearly for their temporary
triumph. At the moment of setting sail, he wrote to the Senate to
announce the conclusion of the war in Asia, and his own speedy return.
Three years, he said, had been sufficient to enable him to re-unite with
the Roman empire Greece, Macedonia, Ionia, and Asia, and to shut up
Mithridates within the limits of his old possessions; he was the first
Roman who received an embassy from the King of the Parthians.[710] He
complained of the violence exercised against his friends and his wife,
who had fled with a crowd of fugitives to seek an asylum in his
camp.[711] He added, without vain threats, his intention to restore
order by force of arms; but he promised not to repeal the great measure
of the emancipation of Italy, and ended by declaring that the good
citizens, new as well as old, had nothing to fear from him.

This letter, which the Senate ventured to receive, redoubled the fury of
the men who had succeeded Marius. Blood flowed again. Cinna, who caused
himself to be re-elected consul for the fourth time, and Cn. Papirius
Carbo, his colleague, collecting in haste numerous troops, but ill
disciplined, prepared to do their best to make head against the storm
which was approaching. Persuaded that Sylla would proceed along the
Adriatic to invade Italy from the north, Cinna had collected at Ancona a
considerable army, with the design of surprising him in the midst of his
march, and attacking him either in Epirus or Illyria. But his soldiers,
Italiotes in great part, encouraged by the promises of Sylla, and,
moreover, full of contempt for their own general, said openly that they
would not pass the sea. Cinna attempted to make an example of some of
the mutineers. A revolt broke out, and he was massacred. To avoid a
similar lot, Carbo, who came to take the command, hastened to promise
the rebels that they should not quit Italy.

Sylla landed at Brundusium, in 671, at the head of an army of forty
thousand men, composed of five legions, six thousand cavalry, and
contingents from Peloponnesus and Macedonia. The fleet numbered sixteen
hundred vessels.[712] He followed the Appian Way, and reached Campania
after a single battle, fought not far from Canusium.[713] He brought the
gold of Mithridates and the plunder of the temples of Greece, means of
seduction still more dangerous than his ability on the field of battle.
Hardly arrived in Italy, he rallied round him the proscripts and all
those who detested the inapt and cruel government of the successors of
Marius. The remains of the great families decimated by them repaired to
his camp as to a safe place of refuge. M. Licinius Crassus became one of
his ablest lieutenants, and it was then that Cn. Pompeius, the son of
Strabo, a general at twenty-three years of age, raised an army in the
Picenum, beat three bodies of the enemies, and came to offer to Sylla
his sword, already redoubtable.

It was the beginning of the year 672 when Sylla entered Latium; he
completely defeated, near Signia, the legions of the younger Marius,
whose name had raised him to the consulship. This battle rendered Sylla
master of Rome; but to the north, in Cisalpine Gaul and Etruria, Carbo,
in spite of frequent defeats, disputed the ground with obstinacy against
Pompey and Sylla’s other lieutenants. In the south, the Samnites had
raised all their forces, and were preparing to succour Præneste,
besieged by Sylla in person, and defended by young Marius. Pontius
Telesinus, the general of the Samnites, finding it out of his power to
raise the siege, conceived then the audacious and almost desperate idea
of carrying his whole army to Rome, taking it by surprise, and sacking
it. “Let us burn the wolves’ den,”[714] he said to his soldiers: “so
long as it exists, there will be no liberty in Italy.”

By a rapid night-march, Telesinus deceived the vigilance of his
adversary; but, exhausted with fatigue, on arriving at the foot of the
ramparts of Rome, the Samnites were unable to give the assault, and
Sylla had time to arrive with the choicest of his legions.

A sanguinary battle took place at the very gates of the town, on the day
of the calends of November, 672, and it continued far into the night.
The left wing of the Romans was beaten and took to flight, in spite of
the efforts of Sylla to rally it; Telesinus perished in the fight, and
Crassus, who commanded the right wing, gained a complete victory. At
daylight, the Samnites who had escaped the slaughter laid down their
arms and demanded quarter.[715]

More than a year still passed away before the complete pacification of
Italy, and it was only obtained by employing the most violent and
sanguinary measures. Sylla made this terrible declaration, that he would
not pardon one of his enemies. At Præneste, all the senators who were
the partisans of Marius had their throats cut, and the inhabitants were
put to the sword. Those of Norba, surprised through treason, rather than
surrender, buried themselves under the ruins of their city.

Sylla had scrupled at nothing in his way to power; the corruption of the
armies,[716] the pillage of towns, the massacre of the inhabitants, and
the extermination of his enemies; nor did he show any more scruples in
maintaining himself in it. He inaugurated his return to the Senate by
the slaughter, near the Temple of Bellona, of three thousand Samnites
who had surrendered prisoners.[717] A considerable number of the
inhabitants of Italy were deprived of the right of city which had been
granted them after the war of the allies;[718] he invented a new
punishment, that of proscription,[719] and, in Rome alone, he banished
four thousand seven hundred citizens, among whom were ninety senators,
fifteen consulars, and two thousand seven hundred knights.[720] His fury
fell heaviest upon the Samnites, whose spirit of independence he feared,
and he almost entirely annihilated that nation.[721] Although his
triumph had been a reaction against the popular party, he treated as
prisoners of war the children of the noblest and most respectable
families, and, by a monstrous innovation, even the women suffered the
same lot.[722] Lists of proscription, placarded on the Forum with the
names of the intended victims, threw terror into families; to laugh or
cry on looking at these was a crime.[723] M. Pletorius was slaughtered
for having fainted at the sight of the punishment inflicted on the
prætor, M. Marius;[724] to denounce the hiding-place of the proscripts,
or put them to death, formed a title to recompenses paid from the public
treasury, amounting in some cases to twelve thousand drachmas (about
11,640 francs [£460]) a head;[725] to assist them, to have had friendly
or any other relations with the enemies of Sylla, was enough to subject
the offender to capital punishment. From one end of Italy to the other,
all those who had served under the orders of Marius, Carbo, or Norbanus,
were massacred or banished, and their goods sold by auction. They were
to be struck even in their posterity: the children and grandchildren of
the proscripts were deprived of the right of inheritance and of being
candidates for public offices.[726] All these acts of pitiless vengeance
had been authorised by a law called _Valeria_, promulgated in 672, and
which, in appointing Sylla dictator, conferred upon him unlimited
powers. Yet, though Sylla kept the supreme power, he permitted the
election of the consuls every year, an example which was subsequently
followed by the emperors.

Calm re-established in Rome, a new constitution was promulgated, which
restored the aristocracy to its ascendency. The dictator fell into the
delusion of believing that a system founded by violence, upon selfish
interests, could survive him. It is easier to change laws than to arrest
the course of ideas.

The legislation of the Gracchi was abolished. The senators, by the law
_judiciaria_, acquired again the exclusive privilege of the judicatory
functions. The colony of Capua, a popular creation, was destroyed and
restored to the domain. Sylla assumed to himself one of the first
privileges of the censorship, which he had suppressed--the nomination
of the members of the Senate. He introduced into that assembly,
decimated during the civil wars, three hundred knights. By the law on
the priesthood, he removed from the votes of the people and restored to
the college the choice of the pontiffs and of the sovereign pontiff. He
limited the power of the tribunes, leaving them only the right of
protection (_auxilium_),[727] and forbidding their access to the
superior magistracies.[728] He flattered himself that he had thus
removed the ambitious from a career henceforward profitless.

He admitted into Rome ten thousand new citizens (called
_Cornelians_),[729] taken from among the slaves whose masters had been
proscribed. Similar enfranchisements took place in the rest of Italy. He
had almost exterminated two nations, the Etruscans and the Samnites; he
re-peopled their deserted countries by distributing the estates of his
adversaries among a considerable number of his soldiers, whom some
authors raise to the prodigious number of forty-seven legions,[730] and
created for his veterans twenty-three military colonies on the territory
taken from the rebel towns.[731]

All these arbitrary measures were dictated by the spirit of reaction;
but those which follow were inspired by the desire to re-establish order
and the hierarchy.

The rules formerly adopted for the succession of the magistracies were
restored.[732] No person could offer himself for the consulship without
having previously held the office of prætor; or for the prætorship
before he had held that of questor. Thirty years were fixed as the age
necessary for the questorship, forty for the prætorship, and forty-three
for the consulship. The law required an interval of two years between
the exercise of two different magistracies, and often between the same
magistracy, a rule so severely maintained, that, for having braved it in
merely soliciting for the consulship,[733] Lucretius Ofella, one of
Sylla’s most devoted partisans, was put to death. The dictator withdrew
from the freedmen the right of voting, from the knights the places of
honour in the spectacles; he put a stop to the adjudications entrusted
to the farmers-general and the distributions of wheat, and suppressed
the corporations, which threatened a real danger to public tranquillity.
Lastly, to put limits to extravagance, the sumptuary laws were
promulgated.[734]

By the law _de provinciis ordinandis_, he sought to regulate the
provinces and ameliorate their administration. The two consuls and the
eight prætors were retained at Rome during their year of office by the
administration of civil affairs. They took afterwards, in quality of
proconsuls or proprætors, the command of one of the ten provinces, which
they exercised during a year; after which a new curiate law became
necessary to renew the _imperium_; they preserved it until their return
to Rome. Thirty days were allowed to them for quitting the province
after the arrival of their successors.[735] The number of prætors,
questors, pontiffs, and augurs was augmented.[736] Every year twenty
questors were to be named, which would ensure the recruitment of the
Senate, since this office gave entrance to it. Sylla multiplied the
commissions of justice. He took measures for putting a stop to the
murders which desolated Italy (_lex de sicariis_), and to protect the
citizens against outrages (_lex de injuriis_). The _lex magistratis_
completed, so to say, the preceding.[737] In the number of _crimes of
high treason_, punished capitally, are the excesses of magistrates
charged with the administration of the provinces; quitting their
government without leave of the Senate; conducting an army beyond the
limits of his province; undertaking a war unauthorised; treating with
foreign chiefs: such were the principal acts denounced as crimes against
the Republic. There was not one of them of which Sylla himself had not
been guilty.

Sylla abdicated in 675, the only extraordinary act which remained for
him to accomplish. He who had carried mourning into so many families
returned into his own house alone, through a respectful and submissive
crowd. Such was the ascendency of his old power, supported, moreover,
by the ten thousand Cornelians present in Rome and devoted to his
person,[738] that, though he had resumed his position of simple citizen,
he was still allowed to act as absolute master, and even on the eve of
his death, which occurred in 676, he made himself the executioner of
pitiless justice, in daring to cause to be slaughtered before his eyes
the prætor Granius, guilty of exaction.[739]

Unexampled magnificence was displayed at his funeral; his body was
carried to the Campus Martius, where previously none but the kings had
been inhumed.[740] He left Italy tamed, but not subdued; the great
nobles in power, but without moral authority; his partisans enriched,
but trembling for their riches; the numerous victims of tyranny held
down, but growling under the oppression; lastly, Rome taught that
henceforth she is without protection against the boldness of any
fortunate soldier.[741]


[Sidenote: Effects of Sylla’s Dictatorship.]

VII. The history of the last fifty years, and especially the
dictatorship of Sylla, show beyond doubt that Italy demanded a master.
Everywhere institutions gave way before the power of an individual,
sustained not only by his own partisans, but also by the irresolute
multitude, which, fatigued by the action and reaction of so many
opposite parties, aspired to order and repose. If the conduct of Sylla
had been moderated, what is called the Empire would probably have
commenced with him; but his power was so cruel and so partial, that
after his death, the abuses of liberty were forgotten in the memory of
abuses of tyranny. The more the democratic spirit had expanded, the more
the ancient institutions lost their prestige. In fact, as democracy,
trusting and passionate, believes always that its interests are better
represented by an individual than by a political body, it was
incessantly disposed to deliver its future to the man who raised himself
above others by his own merit. The Gracchi, Marius, and Sylla, had in
turn disposed at will of the destinies of the Republic, and trampled
under foot with impunity ancient institutions and ancient customs; but
their reign was ephemeral,[742] for they only represented factions.
Instead of embracing collectively the hopes and interests of all the
peninsula of Italy, they favoured exclusively particular classes of
society. Some sought before all to secure the prosperity of the
proletaries of Rome, or the emancipation of the Italiotes, or the
preponderance of the knights; others, the privileges of the aristocracy.
They failed.

To establish a durable order of things there wanted a man who, raising
himself above vulgar passions, should unite in himself the essential
qualities and just ideas of each of his predecessors, avoiding their
faults as well as their errors. To the greatness of soul and love of the
people of certain tribunes, it was needful to join the military genius
of great generals and the strong sentiments of the Dictator in favour of
order and the hierarchy.

The man capable of so lofty a mission already existed; but perhaps, in
spite of his name, he might have still remained long unknown, if the
penetrating eye of Sylla had not discovered him in the midst of the
crowd, and, by persecution, pointed him out to public attention. That
man was Cæsar.



BOOK II.

HISTORY OF JULIUS CÆSAR.



CHAPTER I.

(654-684.)


[Sidenote: First Years of Cæsar.]

I. About the time when Marius, by his victories over the Cimbri and
Teutones, saved Italy from a formidable invasion, was born at Rome the
man who would one day, by again subduing the Gauls and Germans, retard
for several centuries the irruption of the barbarians, give the
knowledge of their rights to oppressed peoples, assure continuance to
Roman civilisation, and bequeath his name to the future chiefs of
nations, as a consecrated emblem of power.

Caius Julius Cæsar was born at Rome on the 4th of the ides of Quintilis
(July 12), 654,[743] and the month Quintilis, called _Julius_ [July] in
honour of him, has borne for 1,900 years the name of the great man. He
was the son of C. Julius Cæsar,[744] prætor, who died suddenly at Pisa
about 670,[745] and of Aurelia, descended from an illustrious plebeian
family.

By ancestry and alliances, Cæsar inherited that double prestige which is
derived from ancient origin and recent renown.

On one side, he claimed to be descended from Anchises and Venus;[746] on
the other, he was the nephew of the famous Marius who had married his
aunt Julia. When the widow of this great captain died in 686, Cæsar
pronounced her funeral oration, and thus traced out his own
genealogy:--“My aunt Julia, on the maternal side, is of the issue of
kings; on the paternal side, she descends from the immortal gods: for
her mother was a Marcia,[747] and the family Marcius Rex are the
descendants of Ancus Marcius. The Julia family, to which I belong,
descends from Venus herself. Thus our house unites to the sacred
character of kings, who are the most powerful among men, the venerated
holiness of the gods, who hold kings themselves under their
subjection.”[748]

This proud glorification of his race attests the value which was set at
Rome upon antiquity of origin; but Cæsar, sprung from that aristocracy
which had produced so many illustrious men, and impatient to follow in
their footsteps, showed, from early youth, that nobility obliges,
instead of imitating those whose conduct would make one believe that
nobility dispenses.

Aurelia, a woman of lofty character and severe morals,[749] helped above
all in the development of his great abilities, by a wise and enlightened
education, and prepared him to make himself worthy of the part which
destiny had reserved for him.[750] This first education, given by a
tender and virtuous mother, has ever as much influence over our future
as the most precious natural qualities. Cæsar reaped the fruits of it.
He also received lessons from M. Antonius Gnipho, the Gaul, a
philosopher and master of eloquence, of a rare mind, of vast learning,
and well versed in Greek and Latin letters, which he had cultivated at
Alexandria.[751]

Greece was always the country of the arts and sciences, and the language
of Demosthenes was familiar to every lettered Roman.[752] Thus Greek and
Latin might be called the two languages of Italy, as they were, at a
later period, by the Emperor Claudius.[753] Cæsar spoke both with the
same facility; and, when falling beneath the dagger of Brutus, he
pronounced in Greek the last words that issued from his lips.[754]

Though eager for pleasure, he neglected nothing, says Suetonius, by
which to acquire those talents which lead to the highest honours. Now,
according to Roman habits, the first offices were attainable only by the
union of the most diverse merits. The patrician youth, still worthy of
their ancestors, were not idle: they sought religious appointments, to
give them power over consciences; administrative employments, to
influence material interests; discussions and public discourses, to
captivate minds by their eloquence; finally, military labours, to strike
imaginations by the brilliancy of their glory. Emulous of distinction in
all, Cæsar did not confine himself to the study of letters; he early
composed works, among which are cited “The Praises of Hercules,” a
tragedy of “Œdipus,” “A Collection of Choice Phrases,”[755] a book on
“Divination.”[756] It seems that these works were written in a style so
pure and correct, that they gained for him the reputation of an eminent
writer, _gravis auctor linguæ Latinæ_.[757] He was less happy in the art
of poetry, if we may believe Tacitus.[758] However, there remain to us
some verses addressed to the memory of Terence, which are not wanting in
elegance.[759]

Education, then, had made Cæsar a distinguished man before he was a
great man. He united to goodness of heart a high intelligence, to an
invincible courage,[760] an enthralling eloquence,[761] a wonderful
memory,[762] an unbounded generosity; finally, he possessed one very
rare quality--calmness under anger.[763] “His affability,” says
Plutarch, “his politeness, his gracious address--qualities which he had
to a degree beyond his age--gained him the affection of the
people.”[764]

Two anecdotes of later date must come in here. Plutarch relates that
Cæsar, during his campaigns, one day, surprised by a violent storm, took
shelter in a hut where was only one room, too small to contain many
people. He hastened to offer it to Oppius, one of his officers, who was
sick; and himself passed the night in the open air, saying to those who
accompanied him, “We must leave to the great the places of honour, but
yield to the sick those that are necessary to them.” Another time,
Valerius Leo, with whom he was dining at Milan, having set before him an
ill-seasoned dish, the companions of Cæsar remonstrated, but he
reproached them sharply for their want of consideration for his host,
saying “that they were free not to eat of a dish they did not like, but
that to complain of it aloud was a want of good breeding.”[765]

These facts, of small importance in themselves, yet testify to Cæsar’s
goodness of heart, and to the delicacy of the well-bred man who is
always observant of propriety.

To his natural qualities, developed by a brilliant education, were added
physical advantages. His tall stature, his rounded and well-proportioned
limbs, stamped his person with a grace that distinguished him from all
others.[766] He had black eyes, a piercing look, a pale complexion, a
straight and high nose. His mouth, small and regular, but with rather
thick lips, gave a kindly expression to the lower part of his face,
whilst his breadth of brow betokened the development of the intellectual
faculties. His face was full, at least, in his youth; for in his busts,
doubtless made towards the end of his life, his features are thinner,
and bear traces of fatigue.[767] He had a sonorous and penetrating
voice, a noble gesture, and an air of dignity reigned over all his
person.[768] His constitution, at first delicate, became robust by a
frugal regimen and the habit of exposing himself to the inclemency of
the weather.[769] Accustomed from his youth to all bodily exercises, he
was a bold horseman,[770] and bore privations and fatigues without
difficulty.[771] Habitually temperate, his health was impaired neither
by excess of labour nor by excess of pleasure. However, on two
occasions--the first at Corduba, the second at Thapsus--he was seized
with nervous attacks, wrongly mistaken for epilepsy.[772]

He paid special attention to his person, carefully shaved or plucked out
his beard, and artistically brought his hair forward to the front of his
head, which, in more advanced age, served to conceal his bald forehead.
He was reproached with the affectation of scratching his head with one
finger only, so that he should not disarrange his hair.[773] His
toilette was refined; his toga was generally ornamented with a
laticlavia, fringed down to the hands, and fastened by a girdle
carelessly tied about his loins; a costume which distinguished the
elegant and effeminate youths of the period. But Sylla was not deceived
by these appearances of frivolity, and repeated that they must take care
of this young man with the loose girdle.[774] He had a taste for
pictures, statues, and jewels; and, in memory of his origin, always
wore on his finger a ring, on which was engraved the figure of an armed
Venus.[775]

In fine, we discover in Cæsar, both physically and morally, two natures
rarely united in the same person. He joined an aristocratic delicacy of
body to the muscular constitution of the warrior; the love of luxury and
the arts to a passion for military life, in all its simplicity and
rudeness: in a word, he allied the elegance of manner which seduces with
the energy of character which commands.


[Sidenote: Cæsar persecuted by Sylla (672).]

II. Such was Cæsar at the age of eighteen, when Sylla seized the
dictatorship.[776] Already he attracted all eyes at Rome by his name,
his intellect, his affable manners, which pleased men, and, perhaps,
women still more.

The influence of his uncle Marius caused him to be nominated priest of
Jupiter (_flamen dialis_) at the age of fourteen.[777] At sixteen,
betrothed, doubtless against his will, to Cossutia, the daughter of a
rich knight, he broke his engagement,[778] after the death of his
father, to draw still closer his alliance with the popular party by
marrying, a year after, in 671, Cornelia, daughter of L. Cornelius
Cinna, the ancient colleague of Marius, and the representative of his
cause. From this marriage was born, the following year, Julia, who
became, in after time, the wife of Pompey.[779]

Sylla saw with displeasure this young man, who already occupied men’s
thoughts, although, as yet, he had done nothing, linking himself more
closely with those who were opposed to him. He wished to force him to
divorce Cornelia, but he found him inflexible. When every one yielded to
his will; when, by his orders, Piso separated from Annia, the widow of
Cinna,[780] and Pompey ignominiously dismissed his wife, the daughter of
Antistius, who died for his cause,[781] to marry Emilia, the
daughter-in-law of the dictator, Cæsar maintained his independence at
the price of his personal safety.

Become suspected, he was deprived of his priesthood,[782] and of his
wife’s dowry, and declared incapable of inheriting from his family.
Obliged to conceal himself in the outskirts of Rome to escape
persecution, he changed his place of retreat every night, though ill
with fever; but, arrested by a band of assassins in the pay of Sylla,
he gained the chief, Cornelius Phagita, by giving him two talents (about
12,000 francs),[783] and his life was preserved. Let us note here that,
arrived at sovereign power, Cæsar met this same Phagita, and treated him
with indulgence, without reminding him of the past.[784] Meanwhile, he
still wandered about in the Sabine country. His courage, his constancy,
his illustrious birth, his former quality of flamen, excited general
interest. Soon important personages, such as Aurelius Cotta, his
mother’s brother, and Mamercus Lepidus, a connection of his family,
interceded in his favour.[785] The vestals also, whose sole intervention
put an end to all violence, did not spare their prayers.[786] Vanquished
by so many solicitations, Sylla yielded at last, exclaiming, “Well! be
it so, you will it; but know that he, whose pardon you demand, will one
day ruin the party of the great for which we have fought together, for,
trust me, there are several Mariuses in this young man.”[787]

Sylla had judged truly: many Mariuses, in effect, had met together in
Cæsar: Marius, the great captain, but with a larger military genius;
Marius, the enemy of the oligarchy, but without hatred and without
cruelty; Marius, in a word, no longer the man of a faction, but the man
of his age.


[Sidenote: Cæsar in Asia (673, 674).]

III. Cæsar could not remain a cold spectator of the sanguinary reign of
Sylla, and left for Asia, where he received the hospitality of
Nicomedes, king of Bithynia. A short time afterwards he took part in the
hostilities which continued against Mithridates. The young men of good
family who wished to serve their military apprenticeship followed a
general to the army. Admitted to his intimacy under the name of
_contubernales_, they were attached to his person. It was in this
capacity that Cæsar accompanied the prætor M. Minucius Thermus,[788] who
sent him to Nicomedes to claim his co-operation in the siege of
Mitylene, occupied by the troops of Mithridates. Cæsar succeeded in his
mission, and on his return aided in the capture of the city. Having
saved the life of a Roman soldier, he received from Thermus a civic
crown.[789]

Shortly afterwards he returned to Bithynia, to defend the cause of one
of his clients. His frequent presence at the court of Nicomedes served
as the pretext for an accusation of shameful condescension. But Cæsar’s
relations with the Bithynians may be explained quite naturally by his
feelings of gratitude for the hospitality he had received from them; it
was the reason which made him always defend their interests, and at a
later period become their patron, as may be gathered from the fragment
of a speech preserved by Aulus Gellius.[790] The motives of his conduct
were, nevertheless, so misconstrued, that insulting allusions are to be
found in certain debates of the Senate, and even in the songs of the
soldiers who followed his triumphal car.[791] But these sarcasms, which
told rather of hatred than of truth, as Cicero himself says, _magis odio
firmata quam præsidio_,[792] were only set afloat by his adversaries
very much later, that is to say, at one of those moments of excitement
when political parties shrink from no calumny[793] to mutually decry
each other. Notwithstanding the relaxation of morals, nothing could have
ruined the reputation of Cæsar more than this accusation, for such a
crime was not only abhorred in the army,[794] but, committed with a
foreigner, would have been the most degrading disregard of Roman
dignity. Wherefore Cæsar, whose love for women ought to have shielded
him from such a suspicion, repelled it with just indignation.[795]

After having made his first campaign at the siege of Mitylene, Cæsar
served in the fleet of the proconsul P. Servilius (676), commissioned to
make war on the Cilician pirates, who subsequently received the surname
of _Isauricus_, because he had taken Isaura, their chief place of
refuge,[796] and conquered part of Cilicia. However, he remained but a
short time with Servilius, for, having been informed of the death of
Sylla, he returned to Rome.[797]


[Sidenote: Cæsar on his return to Rome (676).]

IV. The Republic, divided into two parties, was on the eve of falling
into civil war through the diversity of opinion between the two consuls,
Lepidus and Catulus. They were ready to come to blows. The former,
elevated to the consulship by the influence of Pompey, against the
advice of Sylla, fomented an insurrection. “He lighted up,” says Florus,
“the fire of civil war at the very funeral pyre of the dictator.”[798]
He wished to abrogate the Cornelian laws, restore to the tribunes their
power, to the proscribed their rights, to the allies their lands.[799]
These designs against the system established by the dictator agreed with
Cæsar’s ideas, and endeavours were made, by seductive offers, to draw
him into the intrigues which were then going on; but he kept aloof.[800]

The Senate succeeded in making the consuls swear that they would be
reconciled, and thought to ensure peace by giving each a military
command. Catulus received the government of Italy, and Lepidus that of
Cisalpine Gaul. The latter, before going to his province, visited
Etruria, where the partisans of Marius flocked to him. The Senate,
informed of these doings, recalled him to Rome, towards the end of the
year, to hold the comitia.[801] Lepidus, leaving Brutus the prætor
encamped near Mutina (_Modena_), marched back to Rome at the head of his
army. Beaten by Catulus and Pompey at the bridge of Milvius, he withdrew
to the coast of Etruria, and, after a new defeat, fled to Sardinia,
where he ended his career miserably.[802] Perpenna, his lieutenant,
went, with the wreck of his army, to rejoin Sertorius in Spain.

Cæsar acted wisely in keeping out of these movements, for not only did
the character of Lepidus inspire him with no confidence,[803] but he
must have thought that the dictatorship of Sylla was too recent, that it
had inspired too many fears, and created too many new interests, to
admit of the reaction, still incomplete in men’s minds, succeeding by
arms. For the present, they must limit themselves to acting on public
opinion, by branding with words the instruments of the past tyranny.

The most general way of entering on a political career was by
instituting a prosecution against some high personage.[804] Its success
mattered little; the real point was to be brought prominently forward by
some remarkable speech, and offer a proof of patriotism.

Cornelius Dolabella, one of the friends of Sylla, who had had the
honours of the consulate and triumph, and who, two years before, was
governor of Macedonia, was now accused by Cæsar of excesses committed in
his government (677). He was acquitted by the tribunal composed of the
creatures of the dictator.[805] Public opinion did not praise Cæsar the
less for having dared to attack a man who was supported and defended by
orators such as Hortensius and L. Aurelius Cotta. Besides, he displayed
so much eloquence, that this first speech gave him at once a veritable
celebrity.[806] Encouraged by this success, Cæsar cited C. Antonius
Hybrida before the prætor M. Lucullus for having, at the head of a body
of cavalry, pillaged certain parts of Greece when Sylla was returning
from Asia.[807] The accused was also acquitted, but the popularity of
the accuser still increased. He also spoke, probably, in other causes
now unknown. Tacitus speaks of a speech of Cæsar’s in favour of a
certain Decius the Samnite,[808] without doubt the same mentioned by
Cicero, who, flying from the proscription of Sylla, was kindly received
by Aulus Cluentius.[809] Thus Cæsar boldly offered himself as the
defender of the oppressed Greeks or Samnites, who had suffered so much
from the regime preceding. He gained especially the good-will of the
former, whose opinions, highly influential at Rome, helped to make
reputations.

These attacks were certainly a means of attracting public attention, but
they also showed the courage of the man, since the partisans of Sylla
were still all in power.


[Sidenote: Cæsar goes to Rhodes (678-680).]

V. Notwithstanding his celebrity as an orator, Cæsar resolved to keep
out of the troubles which agitated Italy, and doubtless felt his
presence in Rome useless to his cause and irksome to himself. It is
often advantageous to political men to disappear for a time from the
scene; they thus avoid compromising themselves in daily struggles
without aim, and their reputation, instead of losing, increases by
absence. During the winter of 678 Cæsar again quitted Italy, for the
purpose of going to Rhodes to complete his studies. This island, then
the centre of intellectual lights, the dwelling-place of the most
celebrated philosophers, was the school of all the well-born youth.
Cicero himself had gone there for lessons some years before.

In his passage, Cæsar was taken by pirates near Pharmacusa, a small
island in the archipelago of the Sporades, at the mouth of the Gulf of
Jassius.[810] Notwithstanding the campaign of P. Servilius Isauricus,
these pirates still infested the sea with numerous fleets. They demanded
twenty talents (£2,329) for his ransom. He offered fifty (£11,640),
which must naturally have given them a high notion of their prisoner,
and insured him better treatment. He sent trusty agents, and among
others Epicrates, one of his Milesian slaves, to raise this sum in the
neighbouring towns.[811] Though the allied provinces and towns were in
this case obliged to furnish the ransom, it was none the less curious,
as a proof of their wealth, to see a young man of twenty-four, arrested
in a little island of Asia Minor, instantly able to borrow so large a
sum.

Left alone with a physician and two slaves[812] in the midst of these
ferocious brigands, he held them in awe by his force of character, and
passed nearly forty days on board without ever loosing either his
sandals or his girdle, to avoid all suspicion of wishing to escape by
swimming.[813] He seemed less a captive, says Plutarch, than a prince
surrounded by his guards; now playing with them, now reciting poems to
them, he made himself loved and feared, and laughingly told them that,
once free, he would have them crucified.[814] Yet the remembrance of
Rome recurred to his mind, and recalled the strifes and enmities he had
left there. He was often heard to say, “What pleasure Crassus will have
at knowing me in these straits!”[815]

As soon as he received his ransom from Miletus and the other towns, he
paid it. Landed on the coast, he hastened to equip ships, impatient to
revenge himself. The pirates, surprised at anchor in the harbour of the
island, were almost all made prisoners, and their booty fell into his
hands. He secured them in the prison at Pergamus, to deliver them up to
Junius Silanus, the proconsul of Asia, whose duty it was to punish them.
But, wishing to sell them and make a profit, Junius replied in an
evasive manner. Cæsar returned to Pergamus, and had them crucified.[816]

He went afterwards to Rhodes, to attend the lessons of Apollonius Molo,
the most illustrious of the masters of eloquence of that time, who had
formerly been to Rome, in 672, as the Rhodian ambassador. About the same
time one of his uncles, the proconsul M. Aurelius Cotta, was appointed
governor of Bithynia, bequeathed by Nicomedes to the Roman people, and
charged, with Lucullus, to oppose the new invasions of Mithridates.
Cotta, beaten by land and sea near Chalcedon, was reduced to great
straits, and Mithridates was advancing against Cyzicus, an allied town,
which Lucullus afterwards relieved. On another side, Eumachius, a
lieutenant of the King of Pontus, ravaged Phrygia, where he massacred
all the Romans, and seized several of the southern provinces of Asia
Minor. The rumours of war, the perils into which the allies were
falling, took Cæsar from his studies. He went over into Asia, levied
troops on his own authority, drove out from the province the king’s
governor, and kept in allegiance towns whose faith was doubtful or
shaken.[817]

[Sidenote: Cæsar Pontiff and Military Tribune (680-684).]


VI. Whilst he was making war on the coasts of Asia, his friends at Rome
did not forget him; and, seeing clearly the importance of Cæsar’s being
clothed with a sacred character, they nominated him pontiff, in the
place of his uncle, L. Aurelius Cotta, consul in 680, who had died
suddenly in Gaul the following year.[818]

This circumstance obliged him to return to Rome. The sea continued to
swarm with pirates, who must necessarily owe him a grudge for the death
of their comrades. The better to escape them, he crossed the Adriatic in
a boat of four oars, accompanied only by two friends and ten
slaves.[819] In the passage, thinking that he saw sails in the horizon,
he seized his sword, resolved to sell his life dearly; but his fears
were not justified, and he landed safe and sound in Italy.

Immediately on his return to Rome, he was elected military tribune, and
succeeded by a large majority over his rival, C. Popilius.[820] This
already elevated rank, since it gave him the command of about a thousand
men, was the first step which the young nobility easily attained, either
by election or by the choice of the generals.[821] Cæsar does not seem
to have profited by his new position to take part in the important wars
in which the Republic was then engaged. And yet the clang of arms echoed
from all quarters.

In Spain Sertorius successfully continued the war begun in 674 against
the lieutenants of Sylla, joined in 677 by Perpenna, at the head of
thirty cohorts,[822] he had got together a formidable army, bravely
maintained the standard of Marius, and given the name of _Senate_ to an
assemblage of 300 Romans. Vanquisher of Metellus for several years,
Sertorius, gifted with a vast military genius, exercising great
influence over the Celtiberians and Lusitanians, and master of the
passes,[823] was dreaming of crossing the Alps. The Spaniards had
already given him the name of a _second Hannibal_. But Pompey, sent in
all haste to Spain, reinforced the army of Metellus, deprived Sertorius
of all hope of penetrating into Italy, and even drove him far back from
the Pyrenees. The united efforts of the two generals, however, did not
effect the subjugation of Spain, which, since 680, had been entirely
re-conquered by Sertorius. But soon after this, his lieutenants
experiencing reverses, desertion began among his soldiers, and he
himself lost his confidence. Yet he would have resisted for a long time
still, had not Perpenna caused him to be assassinated by an infamous act
of treachery. This murder did not profit its author. Though Perpenna
succeeded Sertorius in the command of the troops, he found himself an
object of their hatred and contempt. Soon defeated and taken prisoner by
Pompey, he was put to death. Thus ended the war in Spain in 682.

In Asia, Lucullus successfully pursued the campaign against
Mithridates, who courageously maintained the struggle, and had even been
able to come to an understanding with Sertorius. Lucullus beat him in
Cappadocia (683), and forced him to take refuge with Tigranes, his
son-in-law, King of Armenia, who soon experienced a sanguinary defeat,
and lost his capital, Tigranocerta.

In the East, the barbarians infested the frontiers of Macedonia, the
pirates of Cilicia sailed from end to end of all the seas with impunity,
and the Cretans flew to arms to defend their independence.

Italy was torn by the Servile War. This disinherited class had risen up
anew, despite the bloody repression of the Sicilian insurrection from
620 to 623. It had acquired the knowledge of its strength chiefly from
the circumstance that each party in the civil troubles had by turns
granted its liberty to increase the number of its respective adherents.
In 681, seventy gladiators, kept at Capua, revolted; their chief was
Spartacus, formerly a soldier, made prisoner, then sold as a slave. In
less than a year his band had so much increased that consular armies
were needed to combat him, and, having gained a victory in Picenum, for
a moment he had entertained the thought of marching upon Rome at the
head of 40,000 men.[824] Nevertheless, forced to withdraw to the south
of Italy, he contended against the Roman forces successfully for two
years, when at last, in 683, Licinius Crassus, at the head of eight
legions, conquered him in Apulia. Spartacus perished in the fight; the
remainder of the army of slaves separated into four bodies, one of
which, retiring towards Gaul, was easily dispersed by Pompey, who was
returning from Spain. The 6,000 prisoners taken in the battle fought in
Apulia were hanged all along the road from Capua to Rome.

Occasions for making himself perfect in the art of war were not wanting
to Cæsar; but we can understand his inaction, for Sylla’s partisans
alone were at the heads of the armies; in Spain, Metellus and
Pompey--the first the brother-in-law of the Dictator, the second
formerly his best lieutenant; in Italy, Crassus, the enemy of Cæsar,
equally devoted to the party of Sylla; in Asia, Lucullus, an old friend
of the Dictator, who had dedicated his “_Memoirs_”[825] to him. Cæsar,
then, found everywhere either a cause he would not defend, or a general
under whom he would not serve. In Spain, however, Sertorius represented
the party he would most willingly have embraced; but Cæsar had a horror
of civil wars. Whilst faithful to his convictions, he seems, in the
first years of his career, to have carefully avoided placing between him
and his adversaries that eternal barrier which for ever separates the
children of the same country, after blood has once been shed. He had it
at heart to be able, in his exalted future, to appeal to a past pure
from all violence, so that, instead of being the man of a party, he
might rally round him all good citizens.

The Republic had triumphed everywhere, but she had yet to reckon with
her conquering generals: she found herself in the presence of Crassus
and Pompey, who, proud of their successes, advanced upon Rome at the
head of their armies, to demand or seize the chief power. The Senate
could be but little at ease as to the intentions of the latter, who, not
long before, had sent an insolent letter from Spain, in which he menaced
his country with the sword unless they sent him the supplies necessary
to carry on the war against Sertorius.[826] The same ambition animated
Pompey and Crassus: neither of the two would be the first to disband his
army; each, indeed, brought his own to the gates of the city. Both were
elected consuls, allowed a triumph, and forced by the augurs and public
opinion to be reconciled together; and they held out their hands to each
other, disbanded their troops, and for some time the Republic recovered
an unexpected calm.[827]



CHAPTER II.

(684-691.)


[Sidenote: State of the Republic (684).]

I. When Pompey and Crassus came to the consulship, Italy had been a prey
to intestine convulsions for sixty-three years. But, notwithstanding the
repose which society demanded, and which the reconciliation of the two
rivals seemed to promise, many opposing passions and interests still
seethed in her bosom.[828]

Sylla believed he had re-established the Republic on its ancient basis,
but, instead, he had thrown everything into disorder. The property, the
life even of each citizen, was at the mercy of the stronger; the people
had lost the right of appeal, and their legitimate share in the
elections; the poor, the distribution of wheat; the tribuneship, its
secular privileges; and the influential order of the knights, their
political and financial importance.

At Rome, no more guarantee for justice; in Italy, no more security for
the rights of citizenship, so dearly acquired; in the provinces, no more
consideration for subjects and allies. Sylla had restored their
prerogatives to the upper class without being able to restore their
former prestige; having made use of only corrupt elements, and appealed
to only sordid passions, he left behind him a powerless oligarchy, and
a thoroughly distracted people. The country was divided between those
whom his tyranny had enriched and those whom it had despoiled; the one
fearing to lose what they had just acquired, the other hoping to regain
what they had lost.

The aristocracy, proud of their wealth and ancestry, absorbed in all the
pleasures of luxury, kept the _new men_[829] out of the highest offices,
and, by a long continuance of power, had come to look on the chief
magistracies as their property. Cato, in a discourse to the Senate,
exclaimed:--“Instead of the virtues of our ancestors we have luxury and
avarice; the poverty of the State, and the opulence of individuals; we
boast of our riches, we cherish idleness; no distinction is made between
the good and the wicked; all rewards due to merit are the price of
intrigue. Why then are we astonished at this, since each man, isolating
himself from the rest, consults only his own interest? At home, the
slaves of pleasure; here, of wealth or of favour.”[830]

The elections had for a long time been the result of a shameless
traffic, where every mean of success was allowable. Lucullus himself, to
obtain the government of Asia, did not blush to have recourse to the
good offices of a courtesan, the mistress of Cethegus.[831] The sale of
consciences had so planted itself in public morals, that the several
instruments of electoral corruption had functions and titles almost
recognised. Those who bought votes were called _divisores_; the
go-betweens were _interpretes_; and those with whom was deposited the
purchase money[832] were _sequestres_. Numerous secret societies were
formed for making a trade of the right of suffrage; they were divided
into decuries, the several heads of which obeyed a supreme head, who
treated with the candidates and sold the votes of the associates, either
for money, or on the stipulation of certain advantages for himself or
his friends. These societies carried most of the elections, and Cicero
himself, who so often boasted of the unanimity with which he had been
chosen consul, owed to them a great part of the suffrages he
obtained.[833]

All the sentences of the tribunals composed of senators were dictated by
a venality so flagrant, that Cicero brands it in these terms:--“I will
demonstrate by positive proofs the guilty intrigues, the infamies which
have sullied the judicial powers for the ten years that they have been
entrusted to the Senate. The Roman people shall learn from me how the
knightly order has administered justice for nearly fifty consecutive
years, without the faintest suspicion resting on any of its members of
having received money for a judgment delivered; how, since senators
alone have composed our tribunals, since the people have been despoiled
of the right which they had over each of us, Q. Calidius has been able
to say, after his condemnation, that they could not honestly require
less than 300,000 sestertii to condemn a prætor; how, when the senator
P. Septimius was found guilty of embezzlement before the prætor
Hortensius, the money he had received in his quality of judge was
included in his fine; how C. Herennius and C. Popilius, both senators,
having been convicted of the crime of peculation, and M. Atilius of the
crime of high treason, it was proved that they had received money as the
price of one of their sentences; how it was found that certain senators,
when their names were taken from the urn held by C. Verres, then prætor
urbanus, instantly went to vote against the accused, without having
heard the suit; how, finally, we have seen a senator, judge in this same
suit, receive money from the accused to distribute to the other judges,
and money from the accuser to condemn the accused. Can I, then,
sufficiently deplore this blot, this shame, this calamity which weighs
on the whole order?”[834]

Notwithstanding the severity of the laws against the avidity of the
generals and farmers of the revenues, notwithstanding the patronage of
the great at Rome, the conquered peoples[835] were always a prey to the
exactions of the magistrates, and Verres was a type of the most
shameless immorality, which drew this exclamation from Cicero: “All the
provinces groan; all free peoples lament; all the kingdoms cry out
against our cupidity and our violence. There is not between the Ocean
and ourselves a spot so remote or so little known that the injustice and
tyranny of our fellow-citizens of these days have not penetrated to
it.”[836] The inhabitants of foreign countries were obliged to borrow,
either to satisfy the immoderate demands of their governors and their
retinue, or to pay the farmers of the public revenues. Now, capital
being nowhere but at Rome, they could only procure it at an excessive
rate of interest; and the nobles, giving themselves up to usury, held
the provinces in their power.

The army itself had been demoralised by civil wars, and the chiefs no
longer maintained discipline. “Flamininus, Aquilius, Paulus Æmilius,”
says Dio Cassius, “commanded men well disciplined, who had learnt to
execute the orders of their generals in silence. The law was their rule;
with a royal soul, simple in life, bounding their expenses within
reasonable limits, they held it more shameful to flatter the soldiery
than to fear the enemy. From the time of Sylla, on the contrary, the
generals, raised to the first rank by violence and not by merit, forced
to turn their arms against each other rather than against the enemy,
were reduced to court popularity. Charged with the command, they
squandered gold to procure enjoyments for an army, the fatigues of which
they paid dearly; they rendered their country venal, without caring for
it; and made themselves the slaves of the most depraved men, to bring
under their authority those who were worth more than themselves. This is
what drove Marius out of Rome, and led him back against Sylla; this is
what made Cinna the murderer of Octavius, and Fimbria the murderer of
Flaccus. Sylla was the principal cause of these evils, he who, to seduce
the soldiers enrolled under other chiefs, and bring them under his own
flag, scattered gold in handfuls among his army.”[837]

Far were they from the times when the soldier, after a short campaign,
laid down his arms to take up the plough again; since then, retained
under his standards for long years, and returning in the train of a
victorious general to vote in the Campus Martius, the citizen had
disappeared; there remained the warrior, with the sole inspiration of
the camp. At the end of the expeditions, the army was disbanded, and
Italy thus found itself overrun with an immense number of veterans,
united in colonies or dispersed over the territory, more inclined to
follow a leader than to obey the law. The veterans of the ancient
legions of Marius and Sylla were to be counted by hundreds of thousands.

A State, moreover, is often weakened by an exaggeration of the principle
on which it rests; and as war was the chief occupation at Rome, all the
institutions had originally a military character. The consuls, the first
magistrates of the Republic, elected by centuries--that is to say, by
the people voting under arms--commanded the troops. The army, composed
of all there was most honourable in the nation, did not take an oath to
the Republic, but to the chief who recruited it and led it against the
enemy; this oath, religiously kept, rendered the generals the absolute
masters of their soldiers, who, in their turn, decreed to them the title
of _Imperator_ after a victory: what more natural, then, even after the
transformation of society, than that these soldiers should believe
themselves the real people, and the generals elected by them the
legitimate chiefs of the Republic? Every abuse has deep roots in the
past, and we may find the original cause of the power of the prætorians
under the emperors in the primitive organisation and functions of the
centuries established by Servius Tullius.

Although the army had not as yet acquired this preponderance, it
nevertheless weighed heavily on the decisions of the Forum. By the side
of men habituated to the noble chances of the fight existed a true army
of turbulence, kept at the expense of the State or of private persons,
in the principal towns of Italy--above all, at Capua: these were the
gladiators, ever ready to undertake anything for those who paid them,
either in the electoral contests[838] or as soldiers in the times of
civil war.[839]

Thus all was struck with decadence. Brute force bestowed power, and
corruption the magistracies. The empire no longer belonged to the
Senate, but to the commanders of the armies; the armies no longer
belonged to the Republic, but to the chiefs who led them to victory.
Numerous elements of dissolution afflicted society: the venality of the
judges, the traffic in elections, the absolutism of the Senate, the
tyranny of wealth, which oppressed the poor by usury, and braved the law
with impunity.

Rome found herself divided into two thoroughly distinct parties; the
one, seeing salvation only in the past, attached itself to abuses, in
the fear that to displace one stone would be to shatter the whole
edifice; the other wished to consolidate it by rendering the base larger
and the summit less unsteady. The first party supported itself on the
institutions of Sylla; the second had taken the name of Marius as the
symbol of its hopes.

Great causes need an historical figure to personify their interests and
tendencies. The man once adopted, his faults, his very crimes are
forgotten, and his great deeds alone remembered. Thus, the vengeance
and massacres of Marius had faded away from memory at Rome. Only his
victories, which had preserved Italy from the invasions of the Cimbri
and the Teutones, were recalled; his misfortunes were pitied, his hatred
to the aristocracy vaunted. The preferences of public opinion were
clearly manifested by the language of the orators, even those most
favourable to the Senate. Thus Catulus and Cicero, speaking of Sylla or
of Marius, the tyranny of both of whom had been substantially almost
equally cruel, thought themselves obliged to glorify the one and to
brand the other;[840] yet the legislation of Sylla was still in full
vigour, his party omnipotent--that of Marius dispersed and
powerless.[841]

The struggle, which was perseveringly continued for sixty-three years
against the Senate, had never succeeded, because the defence of the
people had never been placed in hands either sufficiently strong or
sufficiently pure. To the Gracchi had been wanting an army; to Marius a
power less disgraced by excesses; to the war of the allies a character
less hostile to the national unity of which Rome was the representative.
As to Spartacus, by rousing the slaves he went beyond his aim, and his
success threatened the whole of society; he was annihilated. To triumph
over a long accumulation of prejudices, the popular cause needed a chief
of transcendent merit, and a concurrence of circumstances difficult to
foresee. But then the genius of Cæsar was not yet revealed, and the
vanquisher of Sertorius was the only one who dominated the situation by
his antecedents and high achievements.


[Sidenote: Consulship of Pompey and Crassus.]

II. By a line of conduct quite opposite to that of Cæsar, Pompey had
greatly risen during the civil wars. From the age of twenty-three he had
received from Sylla the title _Imperator_, and the name of “Great;”[842]
he passed for the first warrior of his time, and had distinguished
himself in Italy, Sicily, and Africa against the partisans of Marius,
whom he caused to be pitilessly massacred.[843] Fate had ever favoured
him. In Spain, the death of Sertorius had made victory easy to him; on
his return, the fortuitous defeat of the fugitive remains of the army of
Spartacus allowed him to assume the honour of having put an end to that
formidable insurrection; soon he will profit by the success already
obtained by Lucullus against Mithridates. Thus a distinguished writer
has justly said that Pompey always came in time to terminate, to his own
glory, the wars which were just going to end to the glory of
another.[844]

The vulgar, who hail good fortune as the equal of genius, surrounded
then the conqueror of Spain with their homage, and he himself, of a poor
and vain spirit, referred the favours of fortune to his own sole merit.
Seeking power for ornament rather than service, he courted it not in the
hope of making a cause or a principle triumphant, but to enjoy it
peaceably by trimming between different parties. Thus, whilst to Cæsar
power was a means, to him it was only the end. Honest, but vacillating,
he was unconsciously the instrument of those who flattered him. His
courteous manners, and the show of disinterestedness which disguised his
ambition, removed all suspicions of his aspiring to the supreme
power.[845] An able general in ordinary times, he was great only while
events were not greater than he. Nevertheless, he then enjoyed the
highest reputation at Rome. By his antecedents he was rather the
representative of the party of the aristocracy; but the desire of
conciliating public favour, and his own intelligence, made him
comprehend the necessity of certain modifications in the laws: thus,
before entering Rome to celebrate his triumph over the Celtiberians, he
manifested the intention of re-establishing the prerogative of the
tribunes, of putting an end to the devastation and oppression of the
provinces, of restoring impartiality to justice, and respect to the
judges.[846] He was then consul-elect; his promises excited the most
lively enthusiasm; for it was the evil administration of the provinces,
and the venality of the senators in their judicial functions, which more
than all else made the people demand so ardently the re-establishment of
the privileges of the tribuneship, notwithstanding the abuses which they
had engendered.[847] Excesses in power always give birth to an
immoderate desire for liberty.

In publishing the programme of his conduct, of his own free will, before
entering Rome, Pompey did not yield to a fascination cleverly exerted
over him by Cæsar, as several historians pretend; he obeyed a stronger
impulse, that of public opinion. The nobles reproached him with having
abandoned their cause,[848] but the popular party was satisfied, and
Cæsar, seeing the new consul take his ideas and sentiments to heart,
resolved to support him energetically.[849] Doubtless, he thought that
with so many elements of corruption, so much contempt of the laws, so
many jealous rivalries, and so much boundless ambition, the ascendency
of him whom fortune had raised so high could alone, for the time, assist
the destinies of the Republic. Was this a loyal co-operation? We believe
so, but it did not exclude a noble rivalry, and Cæsar could not be
afraid of smoothing for Pompey the platform on which they must one day
meet. The man who understands his own worth has no perfidious jealousy
against those who have preceded him in his career; rather, he goes to
their aid, for then he has more glory in rejoining them. Where would be
the emulation of the contest if one was alone in the power of attaining
the end?

Pompey’s colleague was M. Licinius Crassus. This remarkable man, as we
have seen, had distinguished himself as a general, but his influence was
owing rather to his wealth and his amiable and courteous disposition.
Enriched under Sylla by purchasing the property of the proscribed, he
possessed whole quarters of the city of Rome, rebuilt after several
fires; his fortune was more than forty millions of francs [a million and
a half sterling],[850] and he pretended that to be rich, one must be
able to maintain an army at his own expense.[851] Though his chief
passion was the love of gold, avarice did not with him exclude
liberality. He lent to all his friends without interest, and sometimes
scattered his largesses with profusion. Versed in letters, gifted with a
rare eloquence, he accepted eagerly all the causes which Pompey, Cæsar,
and Cicero disdained to defend; by his eagerness to oblige all those who
claimed his services, either to borrow, or to obtain some situation, he
acquired a power which balanced that of Pompey. This last had
accomplished greater deeds, but his airs of grandeur and dignity, his
habit of avoiding crowds and sights, alienated the multitude from him;
while Crassus, of easy access, always in the midst of the public and of
business, had the advantage over him by his affable manners.[852] We do
not find very defined principles in him, either in political or private
life; he was _neither a constant friend nor an irreconcilable
enemy_.[853] Fitter to serve as an instrument for the elevation of
another, than to elevate himself to the front rank, he was very useful
to Cæsar, who did his best to gain his confidence. “There existed then
at Rome,” says Plutarch, “three factions, the chiefs of which were
Pompey, Cæsar, and Crassus; Cato, whose power did not equal his glory,
was more admired than followed. The wise and moderate part of the
citizens were for Pompey; energetic, speculative, and bold men attached
themselves to the hopes of Cæsar; Crassus, who held the mean between
these two factions, used both.”[854]

During his first consulship, Crassus seems to have been only occupied
with extravagant expenditure, and to have preserved a prudent
neutrality. He made a grand sacrifice to Hercules, and consecrated to
him the tenth part of his revenues; he gave the people an enormous
feast, spread out on ten thousand tables, and bestowed corn for three
months to every citizen.[855]

Pompey occupied himself in more serious matters, and, supported by
Cæsar, favoured the adoption of several laws, all of which announced a
reaction against the system of Sylla.

The effect of the first was to give the tribunes the right anew of
presenting laws and appealing to the people; already, in 679, the power
of obtaining other magistracies had been restored to them.

The second was connected with justice. Instead of leaving to the Senate
alone the whole judicial power, the prætor Aurelius Cotta, Cæsar’s
uncle, proposed a law which would conciliate all interests, by making it
legal to take the judges by thirds from the three classes: that is to
say, from the Senate, the equestrian order, and the tribunes of the
treasury, who were for the most part plebeians.[856]

But the measure which most helped to heal the wounds of the Republic was
the amnesty proposed by the tribune Plotius in favour of all those who
had taken part in the civil war. In this number was comprised the wreck
of the army of Lepidus, which had remained in Spain after the defeat of
Sertorius, and amongst which was to be found C. Cornelius Cinna,
brother-in-law of Cæsar. This last, in speeches which have not come down
to us, but which are quoted by different authors, spared nothing to
assure among the people the success of the proposition.[857] “He
insisted on the _propriety of deciding promptly on this measure of
reconciliation, and observed that there could not be a more opportune
moment for its adoption_.”[858] It was adopted without difficulty. All
seemed to favour a return to the old institutions. The censorship,
interrupted for seventeen years, was re-established, and L. Gellius and
C. Lentulus, the censors chosen, exercised their office with so much
severity, that they expelled from the Senate sixty-four of its members,
probably creatures of Sylla. In the number of those expelled figured
Caius Antonius, previously accused by Cæsar, and Publius Lentulus Sura,
consul in the year 683.

All these changes had been proposed or accepted by Pompey rather to
please the multitude than to obey distinct convictions. And by them he
lost his true supporters in the upper classes, without gaining, in the
opposite party, the foremost place, already occupied by Cæsar. But
Pompey, blind to real worth, imagined then that no one could surpass him
in influence; always favoured by circumstances, he had been accustomed
to see both the arrogance of Sylla and the majesty of the laws yield
before him. Notwithstanding a first refusal by the Dictator, at
twenty-six years of age he had obtained the honours of the triumph,
without having fulfilled any of the legal conditions. Contrary to the
laws, a second triumph had been accorded him, as also the consulship,
though out of Rome, and without having followed the necessary order of
hierarchy of the magistracies. Full of presumption through the examples
of the past, full of confidence in the future through the adulation of
the present, he thought he might wound the interests of the nobles
without alienating them, and flatter the tastes and passions of the
people without losing his dignity. Towards the end of his consulship,
he, the chief magistrate of the Republic, he, who thought himself above
all others, presented himself as a mere soldier at the annual review of
the knights. The momentary effect was immense when the censors, seated
on their tribunal, saw Pompey traversing the crowd, preceded by all the
pomp of the consular power, and leading before them his horse, which he
held by the bridle. The crowd, silent till then, burst out into
transports of joy, overcome with admiration at the sight of so great a
man glorifying himself for being a simple knight, and modestly
submitting himself to the legal forms. But on the demand of the censors
if he had made all the campaigns required by law, he answered, “Yes, I
have made them all, never having had any other general than
myself.”[859] The ostentation of this reply shows that this step of
Pompey’s was a false modesty, the most insupportable form of pride,
according to the expression of Marcus Aurelius.


[Sidenote: Cæsar Questor (686).]

III. Neither did Cæsar disdain ceremonial; but he sought to give it a
significance which should make an impression upon the mind. The
opportunity soon presented itself. Soon after he was nominated questor
and admitted to the Senate, he lost his aunt Julia and his wife
Cornelia, and hastened to make a veritable political manifestation of
their funeral oration.[860] It was the custom at Rome to pronounce a
eulogy on women only when they died at an advanced age. Cæsar obtained
public approbation by departing from this usage in favour of his young
wife; they saw in it, according to Plutarch,[861] a proof of sensibility
and softness of manners; but they applauded not the family sentiment
only, they glorified much more the inspiration of the politician who
dared to make a panegyric on the husband of Julia, the celebrated
Marius, whose image, in wax, carried by Cæsar’s orders in the funeral
procession, re-appeared for the first time since the proscription of
Sylla.[862]

After having rendered these last honors to his wife, he accompanied, in
the capacity of questor, the prætor Antistius Vetus, sent into Ulterior
Spain.[863] The peninsula was then divided into two great provinces:
Citerior Spain, since called Tarraconensis, and Ulterior Spain,
comprising Bætica and Lusitania.[864] The positive limits, we may well
believe, were not very exactly determined, but at this epoch the _Saltus
Castulonensis_, which corresponds with the Sierras Nevada and
Cazorla,[865] was considered as such between these two provinces. To the
north, the limitation could not be made any more distinct, the Asturias
not being thoroughly conquered. The capital of Ulterior Spain was
Corduba (_Cordova_), where the prætor resided.[866]

The chief towns, doubtless connected by military roads, formed so many
centres of general meeting, where assizes for the regulation of business
were held. These meetings were called _conventus civium Romanorum_,[867]
because the members who composed them were Roman citizens dwelling in
the country. The prætor, or his delegate, presided over them once a
year.[868] Each province in Spain had several of them. In the first
century of our era, there were three for Lusitania and four for
Bætica.[869]

Cæsar, the delegate of the prætor, visited these towns, presiding over
the assemblies and administering justice. He was noted for his spirit of
conciliation and equity,[870] and showed a lively solicitude for the
interests of the Spaniards.[871] As the character of illustrious men is
revealed in their smallest actions, it is not a matter of indifference
to mention the gratitude which Cæsar always had for the good offices of
Vetus. Plutarch informs us that a strict union reigned between them ever
after, and Cæsar took care to name the son of Vetus questor when he
himself was raised to the prætorship,[872] as sensible of friendship as
he was later forgetful of injuries.

Yet the love of glory and the consciousness of his high faculties made
him aspire to a more important part. He manifested his impatient desire
for this one day when he went to visit the famous temple of Hercules at
Gades, as Hannibal and Scipio had done before.[873] At the sight of the
statue of Alexander, he deplored with a sigh that he had done nothing at
the age when this great man had conquered the whole world.[874] In fact,
Cæsar was then thirty-two years old, nearly the age at which Alexander
died. Having obtained his recall to Rome, he stopped on his return in
Gallia Transpadana (687).[875] The colonies founded in this country
possessed the Latin law (_jus Latii_), which Pompeius Strabo had granted
them, but they vainly demanded the rights of Roman city. The presence of
Cæsar, already known for his friendly feelings towards the provinces,
excited a lively emotion among the inhabitants, who saw in him the
representative of their interests and their cause. The enthusiasm was
such, that the Senate, terrified, thought itself obliged to retain for
some time longer in Italy the legions destined for the army in
Asia.[876]

The ascendency of Pompey still continued, though, since his consulship,
he had remained without command, having undertaken, in 684, not to
accept the government of any province at the expiration of his
magistracy;[877] but his popularity began to disquiet the Senate, so
much is it in the very essence of the aristocracy to distrust those who
raise themselves, and extend their powers beyond itself. This was an
additional motive for Cæsar to connect himself more closely with Pompey;
whereupon he backed him with all his influence; and either to cement
this alliance, or because of his inclination for a beautiful and
graceful woman, shortly after his return he married Pompeia, the
kinswoman of Pompey, and granddaughter of Sylla.[878] He was thus, at
one and the same time, the arbiter of elegance, the hope of the
democratic party, and the only public man whose opinions and conduct had
never varied.


[Sidenote: The Gabinian Law (687).]

IV. The decadence of a political body is evident when the measures most
useful to the glory of a country, instead of arising from its provident
initiative, are inaugurated by obscure and often disreputable men, the
faithful but dishonoured organs of public opinion. Thus the propositions
made at this epoch, far from being inspired by the Senate, were put
forward by uninfluential individuals, and carried by the violent
attitude of the people. The first referred to the pirates, who, upheld
and encouraged by Mithridates, had long infested the seas, and ravaged
all the coasts; an energetic repression was indispensable. These bold
adventurers, whose number the civil wars had greatly increased, had
become a veritable power. Setting out from Cilicia, their common centre,
they armed whole fleets, and found a refuge in important towns.[879]
They had pillaged the much-frequented port of Caieta (_Gaëta_), dared to
land at Ostia, and carry off the inhabitants to slavery; sunk in mid
seas a Roman fleet under the orders of a consul, and made two prætors
prisoners.[880] Not only strangers deputed to Rome, but the ambassadors
of the Republic, had fallen into their hands, and had undergone the
shame of being ransomed.[881] Finally, the pirates intercepted the
imports of wheat indispensable for the feeding of the city. To remedy so
humiliating a state of things, the tribune of the people, Aulus
Gabinius, proposed to confide the war against the pirates to one sole
general; to give him, for three years, extended powers, large forces,
and to place three lieutenants under his orders.[882] The assembly of
the people instantly accepted this proposition, notwithstanding the
small esteem in which the character of its author was held; and the name
of Pompey was in every mouth; but “the senators,” says Dio Cassius,
“would have preferred to suffer the greatest evils from the pirates,
than to have invested Pompey with such a power;”[883] they were ready to
put to death, in the curia itself, the tribune who was the author of the
motion. Scarcely had the multitude heard of the opposition of the
senators, when they flocked in crowds, invaded the place of meeting, and
would have massacred them, had they not been protected from their
fury.[884]

The projected law, submitted to the suffrages of the people, attacked by
Catulus and Q. Hortensius, energetically supported by Cæsar, is then
adopted; and they confer on Pompey, for three years, the proconsular
authority over all the seas, over all the coasts, and for fifty miles
into the interior; they grant him 6,000 talents (35 millions
[£1,400,000]),[885] twenty-five lieutenants, and the power of taking
such vessels and troops as he should judge necessary. The allies,
foreigners, and the provinces, were called on to concur in this
expedition. They equipped five hundred ships, they levied a hundred and
twenty thousand infantry and five thousand horse. The Senate, in spite
of itself, sanctioned the clauses of this law, the utility of which was
so manifest that its publication alone was sufficient to lower the price
of wheat all through Italy.[886]

Pompey adopted an able plan for putting an end to piracy. He divided the
Mediterranean coasts from the Columns of Hercules to the Hellespont and
the southern shores of the Black Sea into ten separate commands;[887] at
the head of each he placed one of his lieutenants. He himself,
retaining the general surveillance, went to Cilicia with the rest of his
forces. This vast plan protected all the shores, left the pirates no
refuge, and enabled him to destroy their fleet and attack them in their
dens at once. In three months Pompey re-established the safety of the
seas, took a thousand castles or strongholds, destroyed three hundred
towns, took eight hundred ships, and made twenty thousand prisoners,
whom he transferred into the interior of Asia, where he employed them in
building a city, which received the name of Pompeiopolis.[888]


[Sidenote: The Manilian Law (688).]

V. At these tidings, the enthusiasm for Pompey, then in the island of
Crete, redoubled, and they talked of placing in his hands the fate of
another war. Although Lucullus had obtained brilliant successes over
Mithridates and Tigranes, his military position in Asia began to be
compromised. He had experienced reverses; insubordination reigned among
his soldiers; his severity excited their complaints; and the news of the
arrival of the two proconsuls from Cilicia, Acilius Glabrio and Marcius
Rex, sent to command a part of the provinces until then under his
orders, had weakened respect for his authority.[889] These circumstances
determined Manlius, tribune of the people, to propose that the
government of the provinces trusted to Lucullus should be given to
Pompey, joining to them Bithynia, and preserving to him the power which
he already exercised over all the seas. “It was,” says Plutarch, “to
submit the whole Roman empire to one sole man, and to deprive Lucullus
of the fruits of his victories.”[890] Never, indeed, had such power been
confided to any citizen, neither to the first Scipio to ruin Carthage,
nor to the second to destroy Numantia. The people grew more and more
accustomed to regard this concentration of power in one hand as the only
means of salvation. The Senate, taxing these proposals with ingratitude,
combated them with all its strength; Hortensius asserted that if all the
authority was to be trusted to one man, no person was more worthy of it
than Pompey, but that so much authority ought not to be centred in one
person.[891] Catulus cried that they had done with liberty, and that,
henceforth to enjoy this, they would be forced to retire to the woods
and mountains.[892] Cicero, on the contrary, inaugurated his entrance
into the Senate by a magnificent oration, which has been preserved to
us; he showed that it was for the best interest of the Republic to give
the conduct of this war to a captain whose noble deeds in the past, and
whose moderation and integrity, vouched for the future. “So many other
generals,” he said at the close, “proceed on an expedition only with the
hope of enriching themselves. Can those who think we ought not to grant
all these powers to one man alone ignore this, and do we not see that
what renders Pompey so great is not only his own virtues, but the vices
of others?”[893] As to Cæsar, he seconded, with all his power, the
efforts of Cicero[894] for the adoption of the law, which, supported by
public feeling, and submitted to the suffrage of the tribes, was adopted
unanimously.

Certainly, Lucullus had deserved well of his country, and it was cruel
to deprive him of the glory of terminating a war which he had
prosperously begun;[895] but the definitive success of the campaign
demanded his substitution, and the instinct of the people did not
deceive them. Often, in difficult cases, they see more clearly than an
assembly preoccupied with the interests of castes or of persons, and
events soon show that they are right.

Lucullus had announced at Rome the end of the war; yet Mithridates was
far from being conquered. This fierce enemy of the Romans, who had
continued the struggle twenty-four years, and whom evil fortune had
never been able to discourage, would not treat, despite his sixty four
years and recent reverses, save on conditions inadmissible by the
Romans. The fame of Pompey then was not useless against such an
adversary. His ascendency alone could bring back discipline into the
army and intimidate the enemy. In fact, his presence was sufficient to
re-establish order, and retain under their standards the old soldiers
who had obtained their discharge, and wished to return to their
homes;[896] they formed the flower of the army, and were known under the
name of _Valerians_.[897] On the other hand, Tigranes, having learned
the arrival of Pompey, abandoned the party of his father-in-law,
declaring that this general was the only one to whom he would
submit,[898] so much does the prestige of one man, says Dio Cassius,
lord it over that of another.[899]

Manilius then demanded the re-establishment of the law of Caius
Gracchus, by virtue of which the _centuria prærogativa_, instead of
being drawn by lot from the first classes of the tribes, was taken
indiscriminately from all the classes, which destroyed the distinctions
of rank and fortune in the elections, and deprived the richer of their
electoral privileges.[900]

We see that it was generally the tribunes of the people who, obeying the
inspiration of greater men, took the initiative in the more popular
measures. But the major part, without disinterestedness or moderation,
often compromised those who had recourse to their services by their
unruly ardour and subversive opinions. Manilius, in 688, suddenly
re-opened a question which always created great agitation at Rome; this
was the political emancipation of the freedmen. He obtained, by a
surprise, the readoption of the law Sulpicia, which gave a vote to the
freedmen by distributing them among the thirty-five tribes, and asserted
that he had the consent of Crassus and Pompey. But the Senate revoked
the law some time after its adoption, agreeing in this with the chiefs
of the popular party, who did not think it was demanded by public
opinion.[901]


[Sidenote: Cæsar Curule Ædile (689).]

VI. Whilst all the favours of fortune seemed to have accumulated on the
idol of the moment, Cæsar, remaining at Rome, was chosen inspector
(_curator_) of the Appian Way (687).[902] The maintenance of the
highways brought much popularity to those who undertook the charge with
disinterestedness; Cæsar gained all the more by his, as he contributed
largely to the cost, and even compromised his own fortune thereby.

Two years afterwards (689), nominated curule ædile with Bibulus, he
displayed a magnificence which excited the acclamations of the crowd,
always greedy of sights. The place named _Comitium_, the Forum, the
Basilicæ, the Capitol itself, were magnificently decorated. Temporary
porticoes were erected, under which were exposed a crowd of precious
objects.[903] These expenses were not unusual: since the triumph of the
dictator Papirius Cursor, all the æediles were accustomed to contribute
to the embellishment of the Forum.[904] Cæsar celebrated with great pomp
the Roman games, and the feast of Cybele, and gave the finest shows of
wild beasts and gladiators ever yet beheld.[905] The number of the
combatants amounted to three hundred and twenty couples, according to
Plutarch, a contemptuous expression, which proves the small account made
of the lives of these men. Cicero, writing to Atticus, speaks of them as
we in our day should speak of racehorses;[906] and the grave Atticus
himself had gladiators, as had most of the great people of his time.
These bloody games, which seem so inhuman to us, still preserved the
religious character which at first they so exclusively possessed; they
were celebrated in honour of the dead;[907] Cæsar gave them as a
sacrifice to his father’s memory, and displayed in them an unwonted
pomp.[908] The number of gladiators which he got together terrified the
Senate, and for the future it was forbidden to exceed a given number.
Bibulus, his colleague, it is true, bore half the expense; nevertheless,
the public gave Cæsar all the credit of this sumptuous discharge of the
duties of their office. Thus Bibulus said that he was like the temple of
Castor and Pollux, which, dedicated to the two brothers, was never
called anything but the temple of Castor.[909]

The nobles saw in the sumptuousness of these games only a vain
ostentation, a frivolous desire to shine; they congratulated themselves
on the prodigality of the ædile, and predicted in his near ruin a term
to his influence; but Cæsar, while spending millions to amuse the
multitude, did not make this fleeting enthusiasm the sole basis of his
popularity; he established this on more solid grounds, by re-awakening
in the people the memories of glory and liberty.

Not content with having helped in several healing measures, with having
gained over Pompey to his opinions, and sought for the first time to
revive the memory of Marius, he wished to sound public opinion by an
astounding manifestation. At the moment when the splendour of his
ædileship had produced the most favourable impression on the crowd, he
secretly restored the trophies of Marius, formerly overturned by Sylla,
and ordered them to be placed in the Capitol[910] during the night. The
next day, when they saw these images shining with gold, chiselled with
infinite art, and adorned with inscriptions which recalled the victories
gained over Jugurtha, the Cimbri, and the Teutones, the nobles began to
murmur, blaming Cæsar for having dared to revive seditious emblems and
proscribed remembrances; but the partisans of Marius flocked in large
numbers to the Capitol, making its sacred roof resound with their
acclamations. Many shed tears on seeing the venerated features of their
old general, and proclaimed Cæsar the worthy successor of that great
captain.[911]

Uneasy at these demonstrations, the Senate assembled, and Lutatius
Catulus, whose father had been one of the victims of Marius, accused
Cæsar of wishing to overthrow the Republic, “no longer secretly, by
undermining it, but openly, in attacking it by breach.”[912] Cæsar
repelled this attack, and his partisans, delighted at his success, vied
with each other in saying “that he would carry it over all his rivals,
and with the help of the people would take the first rank in the
Republic.”[913] Henceforth the popular party had a head.

The term of his ædileship having expired, Cæsar solicited the mission of
transforming Egypt into a Roman province.[914] The matter in hand was
the execution of the will of King Ptolemy Alexas, or Alexander,[915]
who, following the example of other kings, had left his state to the
Roman peoples. But the will was revoked as doubtful,[916] and it seems
that the Senate shrank from taking possession of so rich a country,
fearing, as did Augustus later, to make the proconsul who should govern
it too powerful.[917] The mission of reducing Egypt to a Roman province
was brilliant and fruitful. It would have given to those who might be
charged with it extensive military power, and the disposal of large
resources. Crassus also placed himself on the list, but after long
debates the Senate put an end to all rival pretensions.[918]

About the same time when Crassus was endeavouring to get the inhabitants
of Gallia Transpadana admitted to the rights of Roman citizens, the
tribune of the people, Caius Papius, caused to be adopted a law for the
expulsion of all foreigners from Rome.[919] For, in their pride, the
Romans thus called those who were not Latins by origin.[920] This
measure would specially affect the Transpadanes, who were devoted to
Cæsar, because he had formerly promised to procure for them the title of
citizen, which had been refused. It was feared that they would get into
the comitia, for, since the emancipation of the Italiotes, it was
difficult to distinguish among those who had the right of voting, since
often even slaves fraudulently participated in the elections.[921]


[Sidenote: Cæsar _judex quæstionis_ (660).]

VIII. Cæsar soon re-commenced the political struggle against the still
living instruments of past oppression, in which he had engaged at the
beginning of his career. He neglected no opportunity of calling down
upon them the rigours of justice or the opprobrium of public opinion.

The long duration of the civil troubles had given birth to a class of
malefactors called _sicarii_,[922] who committed all sorts of murders
and robberies. In 674 Sylla had promulgated a severe edict against them,
which, however, excepted the executors of his vengeance in the pay of
the treasury.[923] These last were exposed to public animadversion; and
though Cato had obtained the restitution of the sums allotted as the
price of the heads of the proscribed,[924] no one had yet dared to bring
them to justice.[925] Cæsar, notwithstanding the law of Sylla, undertook
their prosecution.

Under his presidency, in his capacity as _judex quæstionis_, L. Luscius,
who, by the dictator’s order, had slain three of the proscribed, and L.
Bellienus, uncle of Catiline and murderer of Lucretius Ofella, were
prosecuted and condemned.[926] Catiline, accused, at the instigation of
L. Lucceius, orator and historian, the friend of Cæsar, of having slain
the celebrated M. Marius Gratidianus, was acquitted.[927]


[Sidenote: Conspiracies against the Senate (690).]

VIII. Whilst Cæsar endeavoured to react legally against the system of
Sylla, another party, composed of the ambitious and discontented, ruined
by debt, had long sought to arrive at power by plotting. Of this number
had been, since 688, Cn. Piso, P. Sylla, P. Autronius, and Catiline.
These men, with diverse antecedents and different qualities, were
equally decried, yet they did not want for adherents among the lower
class, whose passions they flattered, or among the upper class, to whose
policy or enmity they were serviceable. P. Sylla and Autronius, after
having been made consuls-elect in 688, had been effaced from the
senatorial list for solicitation. Public report mixed up the names of
Crassus and Cæsar with these secret manœuvres; but was it possible that
these two men, in such opposite positions, and even divided between
themselves, should enter into an understanding together for the sake of
a vulgar plot; and was it not a new inconsistency of calumny to
associate in the same conspiracy Cæsar because of his immense debts, and
Crassus because of his immense riches?

Let us remark, besides, that each of the factions then in agitation
necessarily sought to compromise, for the purpose of appropriating to
itself, such a personage as Cæsar, notorious for his name, his
generosity, and his courage.

A matter which has remained obscure, but which then made a great noise,
shows the progress of the ideas of disorder. One of the conspirators,
Cn. Piso, had taken part in the attempt to assassinate the Consuls Cotta
and Torquatus; yet he obtained, through the influence of Crassus, the
post of questor _pro prætore_ into Citerior Spain; the Senate, either to
get rid of him, or in the doubtful hope of finding in him some support
against Pompey, whose power began to appear formidable, consented to
grant him this province. But in 691, on his arrival in Spain, he was
slain by his escort--some say by the secret emissaries of Pompey.[928]
As to Catiline, he was not the man to bend under the weight of the
misfortunes of his friends, or under his own losses; he employed new
ardour in braving the perils of a conspiracy, and in pursuing the
honours of the consulship. He was the most dangerous adversary the
Senate had. Cæsar supported this candidature. In a spirit of opposition,
he supported all that could hurt his enemies and favour a change of
system. Besides, all parties were constrained to deal with those who
enjoyed the popular favour. The nobles accepted as candidate C. Antonius
Hybrida, a worthless man, capable only of selling himself and of
treachery.[929] Cicero, in 690, had promised Catiline to defend
him;[930] and a year before, the Consul Torquatus, one of the most
esteemed chiefs of the Senate, pleaded for the same individual accused
of embezzlement.[931]


[Sidenote: the difficulty of constituting a New Party.]

IX. We thus see that the misfortunes of the times obliged the most
notable men to have dealings with those whose antecedents seemed to
devote them to contempt.

In times of transition, when a choice must be made between a glorious
past and an unknown future, the rock is, that bold and unscrupulous men
alone thrust themselves forward; others, more timid, and the slaves of
prejudices, remain in the shade, or offer some obstacle to the movement
which hurries away society into new ways. It is always a great evil for
a country, a prey to agitations, when the party of the honest, or that
of the good, as Cicero calls them, do not embrace the new ideas, to
direct by moderating them. Hence profound divisions. On the one side,
unknown men often take possession of the good or bad passions of the
crowd; on the other, honourable men, immovable or morose, oppose all
progress, and by their obstinate resistance excite legitimate impatience
and lamentable violence. The opposition of these last has the double
inconvenience of leaving the way clear to those who are less worthy than
themselves, and of throwing doubts into the minds of that floating mass,
which judges parties much more by the honourableness of men than by the
value of ideas.

What was then passing in Rome offers a striking example of this. Was it
not reasonable, in fact, that men should hesitate to prefer a faction
which had at its head such illustrious names as Hortensius, Catulus,
Marcellus, Lucullus, and Cato, to that which had for its main-stays
individuals like Gabinius, Manilius, Catiline, Vatinius, and Clodius?
What more legitimate in the eyes of the descendants of the ancient
families than this resistance to all change, and this disposition to
consider all reform as Utopian and almost as sacrilege? What more
logical for them than to admire Cato’s firmness of soul, who, still
young, allowed himself to be menaced with death rather than admit the
possibility of becoming one day the defender of the cause of the allies
claiming the rights of Roman citizens?[932] How not comprehend the
sentiments of Catulus and Hortensius obstinately defending the
privileges of the aristocracy, and manifesting their fears at this
general inclination to concentrate all power in the hands of one
individual?

And yet the cause maintained by these men was condemned to perish, as
everything which has had its time. Notwithstanding their virtues, they
were only an additional obstacle to the steady march of civilisation,
because they wanted the qualities most essential for a time of
revolution--an appreciation of the wants of the moment, and of the
problems of the future. Instead of trying what they could save from the
shipwreck of the ancient regime, just breaking to pieces against a
fearful rock, the corruption of political morals, they refuse to admit
that the institutions to which the Republic owed its grandeur could
bring about its decay. Terrified at all innovation, they confounded in
the same anathema the seditious enterprises of certain tribunes, and the
just reclamations of the citizens. But their influence was so
considerable, and ideas consecrated by time have so much empire over
minds, that they would have yet hindered the triumph of the popular
cause, if Cæsar, in putting himself at its head, had not given it a new
glory and an irresistible force. A party, like an army, can only conquer
with a chief worthy to command it; and all those who, since the Gracchi,
had unfurled the standard of reform, had sullied it with blood, and
compromised it by revolts. Cæsar raised and purified it. To constitute
his party, it is true, he had recourse to agents but little estimated;
the best architect can build only with the materials under his hand; but
his constant endeavour was to associate to himself the most trustworthy
men, and he spared no effort to gain by turns Pompey, Crassus, Cicero,
Servilius Cæpio, Q. Fufius Calenus, Serv. Sulpicius, and many others.

In moments of transition, when the old system is at an end, and the new
not yet established, the greatest difficulty consists, not in overcoming
the obstacles which are in the way of the advent of a regime demanded by
the country, but to establish the latter solidly, by establishing it
upon the concurrence of honourable men penetrated with the new ideas,
and steady in their principles.



CHAPTER III.

(691-695.)


[Sidenote: Cicero and Antonius, Consuls (691).]

I. In the year 690, the candidates for the consulship were Cicero, C.
Antonius Hybrida, L. Cassius Longinus, Q. Cornificius, C. Lucinius
Sacerdos, P. Sulpicius Galba, and Catiline.[933] Informed of the plots
so long in progress, the Senate determined to combat the conspiracies of
the last by throwing all the votes they could dispose of upon Cicero,
who was thus unanimously elected, and took possession of his office at
the beginning of 691. This choice made up for the mediocrity of his
colleague Antonius.

The illustrious orator, whose eloquence had such authority, was born at
Arpinum, of obscure parents; he had served some time in the war of the
allies;[934] afterwards, his orations acquired for him a great
reputation, amongst others the defence of the young Roscius, whom the
dictator would have despoiled of his paternal heritage. After the death
of Sylla, he was appointed questor and sent to Sicily. In 684, he lashed
with his implacable speech the atrocities of Verres; at last, in 688, he
obtained the prætorship, and displayed in this capacity those sentiments
of high probity and of justice which distinguished him throughout his
whole career. But the esteem of his fellow-citizens would not have
sufficed, in ordinary times, to have raised him to the first magistracy.
“The dread of the conspiracy,” says Sallust, “was the cause of his
elevation. Under other circumstances, the pride of the nobility would
have revolted against such a choice. The consulship would have been
considered profaned, if, even with superior merit, a new man[935] had
obtained it; but, on the approach of danger, envy and pride became
silent.”[936] The Roman aristocracy must have greatly lost its
influence, when, at a critical moment, it allowed a new man to possess
more authority over the people than one from its own ranks.

By birth, as well as by his instincts, Cicero belonged to the popular
party; nevertheless, the irresolution of his mind, sensible to flattery,
and his fear of innovations, led him to serve by turn the rancours of
the great or those of the people.[937] Of upright heart, but
pusillanimous, he only saw rightly when his self-esteem was not at stake
or his interest in danger. Elected consul, he ranged himself on the side
of the Senate, and resisted all proposals advantageous to the multitude.
Cæsar honoured his talent, but had little confidence in his character;
hence he was averse to his candidature, and hostile during the whole of
his consulship.


[Sidenote: Agrarian Law of Rullus.]

II. Scarcely had Cicero entered on his functions, when the tribune P.
Servilius Rullus revived one of those projects which, for ages, have had
the effect of exciting to the highest degree both the avidity of the
proletaries and the anger of the Senate: it was an agrarian law.

It contained the following provisions: To sell, with certain
exceptions,[938] the territories recently conquered, and some other
domains but little productive to the State; devoting the proceeds to the
purchase, by private contract, of lands in Italy which were to be
divided among the indigent citizens; to cause to be nominated, according
to the customary mode for the election of grand pontiff--that is, by
seventeen tribes, drawn by lot from the thirty-five--ten commissioners
or decemvirs, to whom should be left, for five years, the power,
absolute and without control, of distributing or alienating the domains
of the Republic and private properties wherever they liked. No one could
be appointed who was not present in Rome, which excluded Pompey, and the
authority of the decemvirs was to be sanctioned by a curiate law. To
them alone was intrusted the right to decide what belonged to the State
and what to individuals. The lands of the public domain which should not
be alienated were to be charged with a considerable impost.[939] The
decemvirs had also the power of compelling all the generals, Pompey
excepted, to account for the booty and money received during war, but
not yet deposited in the treasury, or employed upon some monument. They
were allowed to found colonies anywhere they thought proper,
particularly in the territory of Stella, and in the _ager_ of Campania,
where five thousand Roman citizens were to be established. In a word,
the administration of the revenues and the resources of the State came
almost wholly into their hands; they had, moreover, their lictors; they
could take the omens, and choose amongst the knights two hundred persons
to execute their decrees in the provinces, and these were without
appeal.

This project offered inconveniences, but also great advantages. Rullus,
certainly, was to blame for not designating all the places where he
wished to establish colonies; for making two exemptions, one favourable,
the other unfavourable to Pompey; for assigning to the decemvirs powers
too extensive, tending to arbitrary acts and speculations: nevertheless,
his project had an important political aim. The public domain,
encroached upon by usurpations or by the colonies of Sylla, had almost
disappeared. The law was to re-constitute it by the sale of conquered
territories. On the other side, the lands confiscated in great number by
Sylla, and given or sold at a paltry price to his partisans, had
suffered a general depreciation, for the ownership was liable to be
contested, and they no longer found purchasers. The Republic, while
desirous of relieving the poorer class, had thus an interest in raising
the price of these lands and in securing the holders. The project of
Rullus was, in fact, a veritable law of indemnity. There are injustices
which, sanctioned by time, ought also to be sanctioned by law, in order
to extinguish the causes of dissension, by restoring their security to
existing things, and its value to property.

If the great orator had known how to raise himself above the questions
of person and of party, he would, like Cæsar, have supported the
proposal of the tribune, amending only what was too absolute or too
vague in it; but, overreached by the faction of the great, and desiring
to please the knights, whose interests the law injured, he attacked it
with his usual eloquence, exaggerating its defects. It would only
benefit, he said, a small number of persons. Whilst appearing to favour
Pompey, it deprived him, on account of his absence, of the chance of
being chosen decemvir. It allowed some individuals to dispose of
kingdoms like Egypt, and of the immense territories of Asia. Capua would
become the capital of Italy, and Rome, surrounded by a girdle of
military colonies devoted to ten new tyrants, would lose its
independence. To purchase the lands, instead of apportioning the _ager
publicus_, was monstrous, and he could not admit that they would engage
the people to abandon the capital to go and languish in the fields.
Then, exposing the double personal interest of the author of the law, he
reminded them that the father-in-law of Rullus was enriched with the
spoils of proscripts, and that Rullus himself had reserved the right of
being nominated decemvir.

Cicero, nevertheless, pointed out clearly the political bearing of the
project, although censuring it, when he said; “The new law enriches
those who occupied the domain lands, and withdraws them from public
indignation. How many men are embarrassed by their vast possessions, and
cannot support the odium attached to the largesses of Sylla! How many
would sell them, and find no buyers! How many seek means, of whatever
kind, to dispossess themselves of them!... And you, Romans, you are
going to sell those revenues which your ancestors have acquired at the
cost of so much sweat and blood, to augment the fortune and assure the
tranquillity of the possessors of the goods confiscated by Sylla!”[940]

We see thus that Cicero seems to deny the necessity of allaying the
inquietudes of the new and numerous acquirers of this kind of national
property; and yet, when a short time afterwards another tribune proposed
to relieve from civic degradation the sons of proscripts, he opposed
him, not because this reparation appeared to him unjust, but for fear
the rehabilitation in political rights should carry with it the
reintegration into the properties, a measure, according to his views,
subversive of all interests.[941] Thus, with a strange inconsistency,
Cicero combated these two laws of conciliation; the one because it
re-assured, the other because it disquieted the holders of the effects
of the proscribed. Why must it be that, amongst men of superiority, but
without convictions, talent only too often serves to sustain with the
like facility the most opposite causes? The opinion of Cicero triumphed,
nevertheless, thanks to his eloquence; and the project, despite the
lively adhesion of the people, encountered in the Senate such a
resistance, that it was abandoned without being referred to the comitia.

Cæsar advocated the agrarian law, because it raised the value of the
soil, put an end to the disfavour attached to the national property,
augmented the resources of the treasury, prevented the extravagance of
the generals, delivered Rome from a turbulent and dangerous populace by
wresting it from degradation and misery. He supported the rehabilitation
of the children of proscripts, because that measure, profoundly
reparative, put an end to one of the great iniquities of the past
regime.

There are victories which enfeeble the conquerors more than the
vanquished. Such was the success of Cicero. The rejection of the
agrarian law, and of the claims of the sons of proscripts, augmented
considerably the number of malcontents. A crowd of citizens, driven by
privations and the denial of justice, went over to swell the ranks of
the conspirators, who, in the shade, were preparing a revolution; and
Cæsar, pained at seeing the Senate reject that sage and ancient policy
which had saved Rome from so many agitations, resolved to undermine by
every means its authority. For this purpose he engaged the tribune, T.
Labienus, the same who was afterwards one of his best lieutenants, to
get up a criminal accusation which was a direct attack upon the abuse
of one of the prerogatives of the government.[942]


[Sidenote: Trial of Rabirius (691).]

III. For a long time, when internal or external troubles were
apprehended, Rome was put, so to speak, in a state of siege, by the
sacramental formula, according to which the consuls were enjoined _to
see that the Republic received no injury_; then the power of the consuls
was unlimited;[943] and often, in seditions, the Senate had profited by
this omnipotence to rid itself of certain factious individuals without
observing the forms of justice. The more frequent the agitations had
become, the more they had used this extreme remedy. The tribunes always
protested ineffectually against a measure which suspended all the
established laws, legalised assassination, and made Rome a battle-field.
Labienus tried anew to blunt in the hands of the Senate so formidable a
weapon.

Thirty-seven years before, as will be remembered, Saturninus, the
violent promoter of an agrarian law, had, by the aid of a riot, obtained
possession of the Capitol; the country had been declared in danger. The
tribune perished in the struggle, and the senator C. Rabirius boasted of
having killed him. Despite this long interval of time, Labienus accused
Rabirius under an old law of _perduellio_, which did not leave to the
guilty, like the law of treason, the power of voluntary exile, but, by
declaring him a public enemy, authorised against him cruel and
ignominious punishments.[944] This procedure provoked considerable
agitation; the Senate, which felt the blow struck at its privileges, was
unwilling to put any one to trial for the execution of an act authorised
by itself. The people and the tribunes, on the contrary, insisted that
the accused should be brought before a tribunal. Every passion was at
work. Labienus claimed to avenge one of his uncles, massacred with
Saturninus; and he had the audacity to expose in the Campus Martius the
portrait of the factious tribune, forgetting the case of Sextus Titius,
condemned, on a former occasion, for the mere fact of having preserved
in his house the likeness of Saturninus.[945] The affair was brought,
according to ancient usage, before the decemvirs. Cæsar, and his cousin
Lucius Cæsar, were designated by the prætor to perform the functions of
judges. The very violence of the accusation, compared with the eloquence
of his defenders, Hortensius and Cicero, overthrew the charge of
_perduellio_. Nevertheless, Rabirius, condemned, appealed to the people;
but the animosity against him was so great that the fatal sentence was
about to be irrevocably pronounced, when the prætor, Metellus Celer,
devised a stratagem to arrest the course of justice; he carried away the
standard planted at the Janiculum.[946] This battered flag formerly
announced an invasion of the country round Rome. Immediately all
deliberation ceased, and the people rushed to arms. The Romans were
great formalists; and, moreover, as this custom left to the magistrates
the power of dissolving at their will the comitia, they had the most
cogent motives for preserving it; the assembly soon separated, and the
affair was not taken up again. Cæsar, nevertheless, had hoped to attain
his object. He did not demand the head of Rabirius, whom, when he was
subsequently dictator, he treated with favour; he only wished to show to
the Senate the strength of the popular party, and to warn it that
henceforth it would no more be permitted, as in the time of the Gracchi,
to sacrifice its adversaries in the name of the public safety.

If, on the one hand, Cæsar let no opportunity escape of branding the
former regime, on the other he was the earnest advocate of the
provinces, which vainly looked for justice and protection from Rome. He
had, for example, the same year accused of peculation C. Calpurnius
Piso, consul in 687, and afterwards governor of Transpadane Gaul, and
brought him to trial for having arbitrarily caused an inhabitant of that
country to be executed. The accused was acquitted through the influence
of Cicero; but Cæsar had shown to the Transpadanes that he was ever the
representative of their interests and their vigilant patron.


[Sidenote: Cæsar Grand Pontiff (691).]

IV. He soon received a brilliant proof of the popularity he enjoyed. The
dignity of sovereign pontiff, one of the most important in the Republic,
was for life, and gave great influence to the individual clothed with
it, for religion mingled itself in all the public and private acts of
the Romans.

Metellus Pius, sovereign pontiff, dying in 691, the most illustrious
citizens, such as P. Servilius Isauricus, and Q. Lutatius Catulus,
prince of the Senate, put themselves at the head of the ranks of
candidates to replace him. Cæsar also solicited the office, and,
desirous of proving himself worthy of it, he published, at this time
doubtless, a very extensive treatise on the augural law, and another on
astronomy, designed to make known in Italy the discoveries of the
Alexandrian school.[947]

Servilius Isauricus and Catulus, relying on their antecedents, and on
the esteem in which they were held, believed themselves the more sure of
election, because, since Sylla, the people had not interfered in the
nomination of grand pontiff, the college solely making the election.
Labienus, to facilitate Cæsar’s access to this high dignity, obtained a
plebiscitum restoring the nomination to the suffrages of the people.
This manœuvre disconcerted the other competitors without discouraging
them, and, as usual, they attempted to seduce the electors with money.
All who held with the party of the nobles united against Cæsar, who
combated solicitation by solicitation, and sustained the struggle by the
aid of considerable loans; he knew how to interest in his success,
according to Appian, both the poor that he had paid, and the rich from
whom he borrowed.[948] Catulus, knowing Cæsar to be greatly in debt, and
mistaking his character, offered him a large sum to desist. He answered
him that he would borrow a much greater sum of him if he would support
his candidature.[949]

At length the great day arrived which was to decide the future of Cæsar;
when he started to present himself at the comitia, the most gloomy
thoughts agitated his ardent mind, and calculating that if he should not
succeed, his debts would constrain him perhaps to go into exile, he
embraced his mother and said, “To-day thou wilt see me grand pontiff or
a fugitive.”[950] The most brilliant success crowned his efforts, and
what added to his joy was his obtaining more votes in the tribes of his
adversaries than they had in all the tribes put together.[951]

Such a victory made the Senate fear whether Cæsar, strong in his
ascendency over the people, might not proceed to the greatest excesses;
but his conduct remained the same.

Hitherto he had inhabited a very moderate house, in the quarter called
Suburra; nominated sovereign pontiff, he was lodged in a public building
in the Via Sacra.[952] This new position necessarily obliged him,
indeed, to a sumptuous life, if we may judge by the luxuriousness
displayed at the reception of a simple pontiff, at which he assisted as
king of the sacrifices, and of which Macrobius has preserved to us the
curious details.[953] Moreover, he built himself a superb villa on the
Lake of Nemi, near Aricia.


[Sidenote: Catiline’s Conspiracy.]

V. Catiline, who has already been spoken of, had twice failed in his
designs upon the consulship; he solicited it again for the year 692,
without abandoning his plans of conspiracy. The moment seemed
favourable. Pompey being in Asia, Italy was bared of troops; Antonius,
associated in the plot, shared the consulship with Cicero. Calm existed
on the surface, whilst passions, half extinguished, and bruised
interests, offered to the first man bold enough, numerous means of
raising commotions.[954] The men whom Sylla had despoiled, as well as
those he had enriched, but who had dissipated the fruits of their
immense plunder, were equally discontented; so that the same idea of
subversion formed a bond of union between the victims and the
accomplices of the past oppression.

Addicted to excesses of every kind, Catiline dreamed, in the midst of
his orgies, of the overthrow of the oligarchy; but we may doubt his
desire to put all to fire and sword, as Cicero says, and as most
historians have repeated after him. Of illustrious birth, questor in
677, he distinguished himself in Macedonia, in the army of Curio; he had
been prætor in 686, and governor of Africa the year following. He was
accused of having in his youth imbrued his hands in Sylla’s murders, of
having associated with the most infamous men, and of having been guilty
of incest and other crimes; there would be no reason for exculpating him
if we did not know how prodigal political parties in their triumph are
of calumnies against the vanquished. Besides, we must acknowledge that
the vices with which he was charged he shared in common with many
personages of that epoch, among others with Antonius, the colleague of
Cicero, who subsequently undertook his defence. Gifted with a high
intelligence and a rare energy, Catiline could not have meditated a
thing so insensate as massacre and burning. It would have been to seek
to reign over ruins and tombs. The truth will present itself better in
the following portrait, traced by Cicero seven years after the death of
Catiline, when, returning to a calmer appreciation, the great orator
painted in less sombre colours him whom he had so disfigured:--“This
Catiline, you cannot have forgotten, I think had, if not the reality, at
least the appearance of the greatest virtues. He associated with a crowd
of perverse men, but he affected to be devoted to men of greatest
estimation. If for him debauchery had powerful attractions, he applied
himself with no less ardour to labour and affairs. The fire of passions
devoured his heart, but he had also a taste for the labours of war. No,
I do not believe there ever existed on this earth a man who offered so
monstrous an assemblage of passions and qualities so varied, so
contrary, and in continual antagonism with each other.”[955]

The conspiracy, conducted by the adventurous spirit of its chief, had
acquired considerable development. Senators, knights, young patricians,
a great number of the notable citizens of the allied towns, partook in
it. Cicero, informed of these designs, assembles the Senate in the
Temple of Concord, and communicates to it the information he had
received: he informs it that, on the 5th of the calends of November, a
rising was to take place in Etruria; that on the morrow a riot would
break out in Rome; that the lives of the consuls were threatened; that,
lastly, everywhere stores of warlike arms and attempts to enlist the
gladiators indicated the most alarming preparations. Catiline,
questioned by the consul, exclaims, that the tyranny of some men, their
avarice, their inhumanity, are the true causes of the uneasiness which
torments the Republic; then, repelling with scorn the projects of revolt
which they imputed to him, he concludes with this threatening figure of
speech: “The Roman people is a robust body, but without head: I shall be
that head.”[956] He departed with these words, leaving the Senate
undecided and trembling. The assembly, meanwhile, passed the usual
decree, enjoining the consuls to watch _that the Republic received no
injury_.

The election of consuls for the following year, till then deferred, took
place on the 21st of October, 691, and Silanus having been nominated
with Murena, Catiline was a third time rejected. He then dispatched to
different parts of Italy his agents, and among others, C. Mallius into
Etruria, Septimius to the Picenum, and C. Julius into Apulia, to
organise the revolt.[957] At the mouth of the Tiber, a division of the
fleet, previously employed against the pirates, was ready to second his
projects.[958] At Rome even the assassination of Cicero was boldly
attempted.

The Senate was convened again on the 8th of November. Catiline dared to
attend, and take his seat in the midst of his colleagues. Cicero, in a
speech which has become celebrated, apostrophised him in terms of the
strongest indignation, and by a crushing denunciation forced him to
retire.[959] Catiline, accompanied by three hundred of his adherents,
left the capital next morning to join Mallius.[960] During the following
days, alarming news arriving from all parts threw Rome into the utmost
anxiety. Stupor reigned there. To the animation of fêtes and pleasures
had, all of a sudden, succeeded a gloomy silence. Troops were raised;
armed outposts were placed at various points; Q. Marcius Rex is
dispatched to Fæsulæ (_Fiesole_); Q. Metellus Creticus into Apulia;
Pomponius Rufus to Capua; Q. Metellus Celer into the Picenum; and,
lastly, the consul, C. Antonius, led an army into Etruria. Cicero had
detached the latter from the conspiracy by giving him the lucrative
government of Macedonia.[961] He accepted in exchange that of Gaul,
which he also subsequently renounced, not wishing, after his consulship,
to quit the city and depart as proconsul. The principal conspirators, at
the head of whom were the prætor Lentulus and Cethegus, remained at
Rome. They continued energetically the preparations for the
insurrection, and entered into communication with the envoys of the
Allobroges. Cicero, secretly informed by his spies, among others by
Curius, watched their doings, and, when he had indisputable proofs,
caused them to be arrested, convoked the Senate, and exposed the plan of
the conspiracy.

Lentulus was obliged to resign the prætorship. Out of nine conspirators
convicted of the attempt against the Republic, five only failed to
escape; they were confided to the custody of the magistrates appointed
by the consul. Lentulus was delivered to his kinsman Lentulus Spinther;
L. Statilius to Cæsar; Gabinius to Crassus; Cethegus to Cornificius; and
Cæparius, who was taken in his flight, to the senator Cn.
Terentius.[962] The Senate was on the point of proceeding against them
in a manner in which all the forms of justice would have been violated.
The criminal judgments were not within its competence, and neither the
consul nor the assembly had the right to condemn a Roman citizen without
the concurrence of the people. Be that as it may, the senators assembled
for a last time on the 5th of December, to deliberate on the punishment
of the conspirators; they were less numerous than on the preceding days.
Many of them were unwilling to pass sentence of death against citizens
belonging to the great patrician families. Some, however, were in favour
of capital punishment, in spite of the law Portia. After others had
spoken, Cæsar made the following speech, the bearing of which merits
particular attention:--

“Conscript fathers, all who deliberate upon doubtful matters ought to be
uninfluenced by hatred, affection, anger, or pity. When we are animated
by these sentiments, it is hard to unravel the truth; and no one has
ever been able to serve at once his passions and his interests. Free
your reason of that which beclouds it, and you will be strong; if
passion invade your mind and rules it, you will be without strength. It
would be here the occasion, conscript fathers, to recall to mind how
many kings and peoples, carried away by rage or pity, have taken fatal
resolutions; but I prefer reminding you how our ancestors, unswayed by
prejudice, performed good and just deeds. In our Macedonian war against
King Perseus, the Republic of Rhodes, in its power and pride, although
it owed its greatness to the support of the Roman people, proved
disloyal and hostile to us; but when, on the termination of this war,
the fate of the Rhodians was brought under deliberation, our ancestors
left them unpunished in order that no one should ascribe the cause of
the war to their riches rather than to their wrongs. So, also, in all
the Punic wars, although the Carthaginians had often, both during peace
and during the truces, committed perfidious atrocities, our fathers, in
spite of the opportunity, never imitated them, because they thought more
of their honour than of vengeance, however just.

“And you, conscript fathers, take care that the crime of P. Lentulus and
his accomplices overcome not the sentiment of your dignity, and consult
not your anger more than your reputation. Indeed, if there be a
punishment adequate to their offences, I will approve the new measure;
but if, on the contrary, the vastness of the crime exceeds all that can
be imagined, we should adhere, I think, to that which has been provided
by the laws.

“Most of those who have expressed their opinion before me have deplored
in studied and magniloquent terms the misfortune of the Republic; they
have recounted the horrors of war and the sufferings of the vanquished,
the rapes of young girls and boys, infants torn from the arms of their
parents, mothers delivered to the lusts of the vanquisher, the pillage
of temples and houses, the carnage and burning everywhere; in short,
arms, corpses, blood, and mourning. But, by the immortal gods, to what
tend these speeches? To make you detest the conspiracy? What! will he
whom a plot so great and so atrocious has not moved, be inflamed by a
speech? No, not so; men never consider their personal injuries slight;
many men resent them too keenly. But, conscript fathers, that which is
permitted to some is not permitted to others. Those who live humbly in
obscurity may err by passion, and few people know it; all is equal with
them, fame and fortune; but those who, invested with high dignities,
pass their life in an exalted sphere, do nothing of which every mortal
is not informed. Thus, the higher the fortune the less the liberty; the
less we ought to be partial, rancorous, and especially angry. What, in
others, is named hastiness, in men of power is called pride and cruelty.

“I think then, conscript fathers, that all the tortures known can never
equal the crimes of the conspirators; but, among most mortals, the last
impressions are permanent, and the crimes of the greatest culprits are
forgotten, to remember only the punishment, if it has been too severe.

“What D. Silanus, a man of constancy and courage, has said, has been
inspired in him, I know, by his zeal for the Republic, and in so grave a
matter he has been swayed neither by partiality nor hatred. I know too
well the wisdom and moderation of that illustrious citizen.
Nevertheless, his advice seems to me, I will not say cruel (for can one
be cruel towards such men?), but contrary to the spirit of our
government. Truly, Silanus, either fear or indignation would have forced
you, consul-elect, to adopt a new kind of punishment. As to fear, it is
superfluous to speak of it, when, thanks to the active foresight of our
illustrious consul, so many guards are under arms. As to the punishment,
we may be permitted to say the thing as it is: in affliction and
misfortune death is the termination of our sufferings, and not a
punishment; it takes away all the ills of humanity; beyond are neither
cares nor joy. But, in the name of the immortal gods, why not add to
your opinion, Silanus, that they shall be forthwith beaten with rods? Is
it because the law Portia forbids it? But other laws also forbid the
taking away the lives of condemned citizens, and prescribe exile. Is it
because it is more cruel to be beaten with rods than to be put to death?
But is there anything too rigorous, too cruel, against men convicted of
so black a design? If, then, this penalty is too light, is it fitting to
respect the law upon a less essential point, and break it in its most
serious part? But, it may be said, who will blame your decree against
the parricides of the Republic? Time, circumstances, and fortune, whose
caprice governs the world. Whatever happens to them, they will have
merited. But you, senators, consider the influence your decision may
have upon other offenders. Abuses often grow from precedents good in
principle; but when the power falls into the hands of men less
enlightened or less honest, a just and reasonable precedent receives an
application contrary to justice and reason.

“The Lacedæmonians imposed upon Athens vanquished a government of thirty
rulers. These began by putting to death without judgment all those whose
crimes marked them out to public hatred; the people rejoiced, and said
it was well done. Afterwards, when the abuses of this power multiplied,
good and bad alike were sacrificed at the instigation of caprice; the
rest were in terror. Thus Athens, crushed under servitude, expiated
cruelly her insensate joy. In our days, when Sylla, conqueror, caused to
be butchered Damasippus and other men of that description, who had
attained to dignities to the curse of the Republic, who did not praise
such a deed? Those villains, those factious men, whose seditions had
harassed the Republic, had, it was said, merited their death. But this
was the signal for a great carnage. For if any one coveted the house or
land of another, or only a vase or vestment, it was somehow contrived
that he should be put in the number of the proscribed. Thus, those to
whom the death of Damasippus had been a subject for joy, were soon
themselves dragged to execution, and the massacres ceased not until
Sylla had gorged all his followers with riches.

“It is true, I dread nothing of the sort, either from M. Tullius or from
present circumstances; but, in a great state, there are so many
different natures! Who knows if at another epoch, under another consul,
master of an army, some imaginary plot may not be believed real? And if
a consul, armed with this example and with a decree of the Senate, once
draw the sword, who will stay his hand or limit vengeance?

“Our ancestors, conscript fathers, were never wanting in prudence or
decision, and pride did not hinder them from adopting foreign customs
provided they appeared good. From the Samnites they borrowed their arms,
offensive and defensive; from the Etruscans, the greater part of the
insignia of our magistrates; in short, all that, amongst their allies
or their enemies, appeared useful to themselves, they appropriated with
the utmost eagerness, preferring to imitate good examples than to be
envious of them. At the same epoch, adopting a Grecian custom, they
inflicted rods upon the citizens, and death upon criminals. Afterwards
the Republic increased; and with the increase of citizens factions
prevailed more, and the innocent were oppressed; they committed many
excesses of this kind. Then the law Portia and many others were
promulgated, which only sanctioned the punishment of exile against the
condemned. This consideration, conscript fathers, is, in my opinion, the
strongest for rejecting the proposed innovation. Certainly those men
were superior to us in virtue and wisdom, who, with such feeble means,
have raised so great an empire, whilst we preserve with difficulty an
inheritance so gloriously acquired. Are we then to set free the guilty,
and increase with them the army of Catiline? In no wise; but I vote that
their goods be confiscated, themselves imprisoned in the municipia best
furnished with armed force, to the end that no one may hereafter propose
their restoration to the Senate or even to the people; that whoever
shall act contrary to this measure be declared by the Senate an enemy of
the State and of the public tranquillity.”[963]

With this noble language, which reveals the statesman, compare the
declamatory speeches of the orators who pleaded for the penalty of
death: “I wish,” cries Cicero, “to snatch from massacre your wives,
your children, and the sainted priestesses of Vesta; from the most
frightful outrages, your temples and sanctuaries; our fair country from
the most horrible conflagration; Italy from devastation....[964] The
conspirators seek to slaughter all, in order that no one may remain to
weep for the Republic, and lament over the ruin of so great an
empire.”[965] And when he speaks of Catiline: “Is there in all Italy a
poisoner, is there a gladiator, a brigand, an assassin, a parricide, a
forger of wills, a suborner, a debauchee, a squanderer, an adulterer; is
there a disreputable woman, a corrupter of youth, a man tarnished in
character, a scoundrel, in short, who does not confess to having lived
with Catiline in the greatest familiarity?”[966] Certainly, this is not
the cool and impartial language which becomes a judge.

Cicero holds cheap the law and its principles; he must have, above all,
arguments for his cause, and he goes to history to seek for facts which
might authorise the putting to death of Roman citizens. He holds forth,
as an example to follow, the murder of Tiberius Gracchus by Scipio
Nasica, and that of Caius Gracchus by the consul Lucius Opimius;[967]
forgetting that but lately, in a famous oration, he had called the two
celebrated tribunes the most brilliant geniuses, the true friends of the
people;[968] and that the murderers of the Gracchi, for having massacred
inviolable personages, became a butt to the hatred and scorn of their
fellow-citizens. Cicero himself will shortly pay with exile for his
rigour towards the accomplices of Catiline.

Cæsar’s speech had such an effect upon the assembly that many of the
senators, amongst others the brother of Cicero, adopted his
opinion.[969] Decimus Silanus, consul-elect, modified his own, and
Cicero at last seemed ready to withdraw from his responsibility, when he
said: “If you adopt the opinion of Cæsar, as he has always attached
himself to the party which passes in the Republic as being that of the
people, it is probable that a sentence of which he shall be the author
and guarantee will expose me less to popular storms.”[970] However, he
persevered in his demand for the immediate execution of the accused. But
Cato mainly decided the vacillating majority of the Senate by words the
most calculated to influence his auditors. Far from seeking to touch the
strings of the higher sentiments and of patriotism, he appeals to
selfish interests and fear. “In the name of the immortal gods,” cried
he, “I adjure you, you, who have ever held your houses, your lands, your
statues, your pictures, in greater regard than the Republic, if these
goods, of whatever kind they be, you desire to preserve; if for your
enjoyments you would economise a necessary leisure; rise at last from
your lethargy, and take in hand the Republic;”[971] which means, in
other terms: “If you wish to enjoy peaceably your riches, condemn the
accused without hearing them.” This is what the Senate did.

A singular incident happened, in the midst of these debates, to show to
what point Cæsar had awakened people’s suspicions. At the most animated
moment of the discussion, a letter was brought to him. He read it with
eagerness. Cato and other senators, supposing it to be a message from
one of the conspirators, insisted upon its being read to the Senate.
Cæsar handed the letter to Cato, who was seated near him. The latter saw
it was a love-letter from his sister Servilia, and threw it back
indignantly, crying out, “There! keep it, drunkard!”[972] a gratuitous
insult, since he himself did justice to the temperance of Cæsar the day
when he said that, of all the men who had overthrown the State, he was
the only one who had done it fasting.[973] Cato expressed with still
greater force the fears of his party when he said: “If, in the midst of
such great and general alarms, Cæsar alone is without fear, it is for
you as well as me an additional motive for fear.”[974] Cato went
further. After the condemnation of the accused to death, he tried to
drive Cæsar to extremities by turning against them an opinion which the
latter had expressed in their interest: he proposed to confiscate their
goods. The debate became then warmer than ever. Cæsar declared that it
was an indignity, after having rejected the humane part of his opinion,
to adopt from it the rigorous spirit it contained, for the purpose of
aggravating the lot of the condemned and adding to their
punishment.[975] As his protestation met with no echo in the Senate, he
adjured the tribunes to use their right of intercession, but they
remained deaf to his appeal. The agitation was at its height, and to put
an end to it, the consul, in haste to terminate a struggle the issue of
which might become doubtful, agreed that the confiscation should not
form a part of the _Senatus-consultum_.

Whilst the populace outside, excited by the friends of the conspirators,
raised seditious clamours, the knights who formed the guard around the
Temple of Concord, exasperated by the language of Cæsar and the length
of the debates, broke in upon the assembly; they surrounded Cæsar, and
with threatening words, despite his rank of pontiff and of prætor-elect,
they drew their swords upon him, which M. Curio and Cicero generously
turned aside.[976] Their protection enabled him to regain his home: he
declared, however, that he would not appear again in the Senate until
the new consuls could ensure order and liberty for the deliberations.

Cicero, without loss of time, went with the prætors to seek the
condemned, and conducted them to the prison of the Capitol, where they
were immediately executed. Then a restless crowd, ignorant of what was
taking place, demanding what had become of the prisoners, Cicero replied
with these simple words, “They have lived.”[977]

We are easily convinced that Cæsar was not a conspirator; but this
accusation is explained by the pusillanimity of some and the rancour of
others. Who does not know that in times of crisis, feeble governments
always tax sympathy for the accused with complicity, and are not sparing
of calumny towards their adversaries? Q. Catulus and C. Piso were
animated against him with so deep a hatred that they had importuned the
consul to include him in the prosecutions directed against the
accomplices of Catiline. Cicero resisted. The report of his
participation in the plot was not the less spread, and had been
accredited eagerly by the crowd of the envious.[978] Cæsar was not one
of the conspirators; if he had been, his influence would have been
sufficient to have acquitted them triumphantly.[979] He had too high an
idea of himself; he enjoyed too great a consideration to think of
arriving at power by an underground way and reprehensible means. However
ambitious a man may be, he does not conspire when he can attain his end
by lawful means. Cæsar was quite sure of being raised to the consulship,
and his impatience never betrayed his ambition. Moreover, he had
constantly shown a marked aversion to civil war; and why should he throw
himself into a vulgar conspiracy with infamous individuals, he who
refused his participation in the attempts of Lepidus when at the head of
an army? If Cicero had believed Cæsar guilty, would he have hesitated to
accuse him, seeing he scrupled not to compromise, by the aid of a false
witness, so high a personage as Licinius Crassus?[980] How, on the eve
of the condemnation, could he have trusted to Cæsar the custody of one
of the conspirators? Would he have exculpated him in the sequel when the
accusation was renewed? Lastly, if Cæsar, as will be seen afterwards,
according to Plutarch, preferred being the first in a village in the
Alps to being second in Rome, how could he have consented to be the
second to Catiline?

The attitude of Cæsar in this matter presents nothing, then, which does
not admit an easy explanation. Whilst blaming the conspiracy, he was
unwilling that, to repress it, the eternal rules of justice should be
set aside. He reminded men, blinded by passion and fear, that
unnecessary rigour is always followed by fatal reactions. The examples
drawn from history served him to prove that moderation is always the
best adviser. It is clear also that, whilst despising most of the
authors of the conspiracy, he was not without sympathy for a cause which
approached his own by common instincts and enemies. In countries
delivered up to party divisions, how many men are there not who desire
the overthrow of the existing government, yet without the will to take
part in a conspiracy? Such was the position of Cæsar.

On the contrary, the conduct of Cicero and of the Senate can hardly be
justified. To violate the law was perhaps a necessity; but to
misrepresent the sedition in order to make it odious, to have recourse
to calumny to vilify the criminals, and to condemn them to death without
allowing them a defence, was an evident proof of weakness. In fact, if
the intentions of Catiline had not been disguised, the whole of Italy
would have responded to his appeal, so weary were people of the
humiliating yoke which weighed upon Rome; but they proclaimed him as one
meditating conflagration, murder, and pillage. “Already,” it was said,
“the torches are lit, the assassins are at their posts, the conspirators
drink human blood, and dispute over the shreds of a man they have
butchered.”[981] It was by these rumours dexterously spread, by these
exaggerations which Cicero himself afterwards ridiculed,[982] that the
disposition of the people, at first favourable to the insurrection, soon
turned against it.[983]

That Catiline might have associated, like all promoters of revolutions,
with men who had nothing to lose and everything to gain, cannot be
disputed; but how can we believe that the majority of his accomplices
was composed of criminals loaded with vices? By the confession of
Cicero, many honourable individuals figured amongst the
conspirators.[984] Inhabitants of colonies and municipia belonging to
the first families in their country, allied themselves with Catiline.
Many sons of senators, and amongst others Aulus Fulvius,[985] were
arrested on their way to join the insurgents, and put to death by the
order of their fathers. Nearly all the Roman youth, says Sallust,
favoured at that time the designs of the bold conspirator, and, on the
other hand, throughout the whole empire, the populace, eager for
novelty, approved of his enterprise.[986]

That Catiline may have been a perverse and cruel man of the kind of
Marius and Sylla, is probable; that he wished to arrive at power by
violence, is certain; but that he had gained to his cause so many
important individuals, that he had inspired their enthusiasm, that he
had so profoundly agitated the peoples of Italy, without having
proclaimed one great or generous idea, is not probable. Indeed, although
attached to the party of Sylla by his antecedents, he knew that the only
standard capable of rallying numerous partisans was that of Marius. Thus
for a long time he preserved in his house, with a religious care, the
silver eagle which had guided the legions of that illustrious
captain.[987] His speeches confirm still further this view: in
addressing himself to his accomplices, he laments seeing the destinies
of the Republic in the hands of a faction who excluded the greatest
number from all participation in honours and riches.[988] He wrote to
Catulus, a person of the highest respect, with whom he was intimate, the
following letter, deficient neither in simplicity nor in a certain
grandeur, the calmness of which offers a striking contrast to the
vehemence of Cicero:--

“L. Catiline to Q. Catulus, salutation,--Thy tried friendship, which has
always been precious to me, gives me the assurance that in my misfortune
thou wilt hear my prayer. I do not wish to justify the part I have
taken. My conscience reproaches me with nothing, and I wish only to
expose my motives, which truly thou wilt find lawful. Driven to
extremity by the insults and injustices of my enemies, robbed of the
recompense due to my services, finally hopeless of ever obtaining the
dignity to which I am entitled, I have taken in hand, according to my
custom, the common cause of all the unfortunate. I am represented as
constrained by debts to this bold resolution: it is a calumny. My
personal means are sufficient to acquit my engagements; and it is known
that, thanks to the generosity of my wife and of her daughter, I have
done honour to other engagements which were foreign to me. But I cannot
see with composure unworthy men at the pinnacle of honours, whilst they
drive me away from them with groundless accusations. In the extremity to
which they have thus reduced me, I embrace the only part that remains
to a man of heart to defend his political position. I should like to
write more fully, but I hear they are setting on foot against me the
last degree of violence. I commend to thee Orestilla, and confide her to
thy faith. Protect her, I beseech thee, by the head of thy children.
Adieu.”

The same sentiments inspired the band of conspirators commanded by
Mallius. They reveal themselves in these words: “We call gods and men to
witness that it is not against our country that we have taken up arms,
nor against the safety of our fellow-citizens. We, wretched paupers as
we are, who, through the violence and cruelty of usurers, are without
country, all condemned to scorn and indigence, are actuated by one only
wish, to guarantee our personal security against wrong. We demand
neither power nor wealth, those great and eternal causes of war and
strife among mankind. We only desire freedom, a treasure that no man
will surrender except with life itself. We implore you, senators, have
pity on your wretched fellow-citizens.”[989]

These quotations indicate with sufficient clearness the real character
of the insurrection; and that the partisans of Catiline did not
altogether deserve contempt is proved by their energy and resolution.
The Senate having declared Catiline and Mallius enemies of their
country, promised a free pardon and two hundred thousand sestertii[990]
to all who would abandon the ranks of the insurgents; “but not one,”
says Sallust,[991] “of so vast an assemblage, was persuaded by the lure
of the reward to betray the plot; not one deserted from the camp of
Catiline, so deadly was the disease, which, like a pestilence, had
infected the minds of most of the citizens.” There is no doubt that
Catiline, though without a conscience and without principles, had
notwithstanding good feeling enough to maintain a cause that he wished
to see ennobled, because, so far from offering freedom to the slaves, as
Sylla, Marius, and Cinna had done, an example so full of charms for a
conspirator,[992] he refused to make use of them, in despite of the
advice of Lentulus, who addressed him in these pregnant words: “Outlawed
from Rome, what purpose can a Catiline have in refusing the services of
slaves?”[993] Finally, that among these insurgents, who are represented
to us as a throng of robbers, ready to melt away without striking a
blow,[994] there existed, notwithstanding, a burning faith and a genuine
fanaticism, is proved by the heroism of their final struggle. The two
armies met in the plain of Pistoja, on the 5th of January, 692: a
terrible battle ensued, and though victory was hopeless, not one of
Catiline’s soldiers gave way. To a man they were slain, following the
example of their leader, sword in hand; all were found lifeless, but
with ranks unbroken, heaped round the eagle of Marius,[995] that
glorious relic of the campaign against the Cimbri, that venerated
standard of the cause of the people.

We must admit that Catiline was guilty of an attempt to overthrow the
laws of his country by violence; but in doing so he was only following
the examples of a Marius and a Sylla. His dreams were of a revolutionary
despotism, of the ruin of the aristocratic party, and, according to Dio
Cassius,[996] of a change in the constitution of the Republic, and of
the subjugation of the allies. Yet would his success have been a
misfortune: a permanent good can never be the production of hands that
are not clean.[997]


[Sidenote: Error of Cicero.]

VI. Cicero believed that he had destroyed an entire party. He was wrong:
he had only foiled a conspiracy, and disencumbered a grand cause of the
rash men who were compromising it. The judicial murder of the
conspirators gave them new life, and one day the tomb of Catiline was
found covered with flowers.[998] Laws may be justly broken when society
is hurrying on to its own ruin, and a desperate remedy is indispensable
for its salvation; and again, when the government, supported by the mass
of the people, becomes the organ of its interests and their hopes. But
when, on the contrary, a nation is divided into factions, and the
government represents only one of them, its duty, if it intends to foil
a plot, is to bind itself to the most exact and scrupulous respect for
the law; for at such a juncture every measure not sanctioned by the
letter of the law appears to be due rather to a selfish feeling of
interest than to a desire for the general weal; and the majority of the
public, indifferent or hostile, is always disposed to pity the accused,
whoever he may be, and to blame the severity with which he was put down.

Cicero was intoxicated with his success. His vanity made him
ridiculous.[999] He thought himself as great as Pompey, and wrote to him
with all the pride of a conqueror. But he received a chilling
answer,[1000] and in a short time saw the accomplishment of Cæsar’s
prophetic words: “If even the greatest criminals are too severely dealt
with, the heinousness of their offence is lost in the severity of their
sentence.”[1001]

Even before the battle of Pistoja, whilst the pursuit of the adherents
of Catiline was still being prosecuted, public opinion was already
hostile to him who had urged the measure, and Metellus Nepos, sent
recently from Asia by Pompey, openly found fault with Cicero’s conduct.
When the latter, on quitting office, wished to address the people for
the purpose of glorifying his consulship, Metellus, who had been elected
tribune, silenced him with these words: “We will not hear the defence
of the man who refused to hear the defence of accused persons,” and
ordered him to confine himself to the usual oath, that he had in no way
contravened the laws. “I swear,” answered Cicero, “that I have saved the
Republic.” However loudly this boastful exclamation might be applauded
by Cato and the bystanders, who hail him with Father of his Country,
their enthusiasm will have but a short duration.[1002]


[Sidenote: Cæsar Prætor (692).]

VII. Cæsar, prætor-elect of the city (_urbanus_) the preceding year,
entered upon his office in the year 692. Bibulus, his former colleague
in the edileship, and his declared opponent, was his colleague. The more
his influence increased, the more he seems to have placed it at the
service of Pompey, upon whom, since his departure, the hopes of the
popular party rested. He had more share than all the others in causing
extraordinary honours to be decreed to the conqueror of
Mithridates,[1003] such as the privilege of attending the games of the
circus in a robe of triumph and a crown of laurels, and of sitting in
the theatre in the official dress of the magistrates, the
_prætexta_.[1004] Still more, he used all his endeavours to reserve for
Pompey one of those opportunities of gratifying personal vanity which
the Romans prized so highly.

It was the custom for those who were charged with the restoration of any
public monument to have their name engraved on it when the work was
completed. Catulus had caused his to be inscribed on the Temple of
Jupiter, burnt in the Capitol in 671, and of which he had been intrusted
with the rebuilding by Sylla. This temple, however, had not been
entirely completed. Cæsar appealed against this infraction of the law,
accused Catulus of having appropriated a part of the money intended for
the restoration, and proposed that the completion of the work should be
confided to Pompey on his return, that his name should be placed thereon
instead of that of Catulus, and that he should perform the ceremony of
dedication.[1005] Cæsar thus not only gave a proof of deference to
Pompey, but he sought to please the multitude by gaining a verdict
against one of the most esteemed chiefs of the aristocratic party.

The news of this accusation caused a sensation in the Senate, and the
eagerness with which the nobles hurried into the Forum to vote against
the proposal was such, that on that day they omitted to go, according to
custom, to congratulate the new consuls; a proof that in this case also
it was entirely a question of party. Catulus pronounced his own defence,
but without being able to gain the tribune; and the tumult increasing,
Cæsar was obliged to give way to force. The affair went no
farther.[1006]

The reaction of public opinion against the conduct of the Senate
continued, and men did not hesitate to accuse it openly of having
murdered the accomplices of Catiline. Metellus Nepos, supported by the
friends of the conspirators, by the partisans of his patron, and by
those of Cæsar, proposed a law for the recall of Pompey with his army,
that he might, as he said, maintain order in the city, protect the
citizens, and prevent their being put to death without a trial. The
Senate, and notably Cato and Q. Minucius, offended already by the
success of the army of Asia, offered a steady resistance to these
proposals.

On the day when the tribes voted, scenes of the greatest turbulence took
place. Cato seated himself between the prætor Cæsar and the tribune
Metellus, to prevent their conversing together. Blows were given, swords
were drawn,[1007] and each of the two factions was in turn driven from
the Forum; until at last the senatorial party gained the day. Metellus,
obliged to fly, declared that he was yielding to force, and that he was
going to join Pompey, who would know well how to avenge them both. It
was the first time that a tribune had been known to abandon Rome and
take refuge in the camp of a general. The Senate deprived him of his
office, and Cæsar of that of prætor.[1008] The latter paid no attention,
kept his lictors, and continued the administration of justice; but, on
being warned that it was intended to make use of compulsion against him,
he voluntarily resigned his office, and shut himself up in his house.

Nevertheless, this outrage against the laws was not submitted to with
indifference. Two days afterwards, a crowd assembled before Cæsar’s
house: the people with loud cries urged him to resume his office; while
Cæsar, on his part, engaged them not to transgress the laws. The Senate,
which had met on hearing of this riot, sent for him, thanked him for his
respect for the laws, and reinstated him in his prætorship.

It was thus that Cæsar maintained himself within the pale of the law,
and obliged the Senate to overstep it. This body, heretofore so firm,
and yet so temperate, no longer shrank from extraordinary acts of
authority; a tribune and a prætor were at the same time obliged to fly
from their arbitrary proceedings. Ever since the days of the Gracchi,
Rome had witnessed the same scenes of violence, sometimes on the part of
the nobles, at others on the part of the people.

The justice which the fear of a popular movement had caused to be
rendered to Cæsar had not discouraged the hatred of his enemies. They
tried to renew against him the accusation of having been an accomplice
in Catiline’s conspiracy. At their instigation, Vettius, a man who had
been formerly employed by Cicero as a spy to discover the plot, summoned
him before the questor Novius Niger;[1009] and Curius, to the latter of
whom a public reward had been decreed, accused him before the Senate.
They both swore to his enrolment among the conspirators, pretending that
they had received their information from the lips of Catiline himself.
Cæsar had no difficulty in defending himself, and appealed to the
testimony of Cicero, who at once declared his innocence. The court,
however, sat for a long time; and the rumour of the charge having been
spread abroad in the city, the crowd, uneasy as to what might be Cæsar’s
fate, assembled in great numbers to demand his release. So irritated
they appeared, that to calm them, Cato conceived it necessary to propose
to the Senate a decree ordering a distribution of wheat to the poor: a
largess which cost the treasury more than 1,250 talents yearly
(7,276,250 francs [£291,050]).[1010]

No time was lost in pronouncing the charge calumnious; Curius was
deprived of his promised reward; and Vettius, on his way to prison, was
all but torn to pieces before the rostra.[1011] The questor Nevius was
in like manner arrested for having allowed a prætor, whose authority was
superior to his own, to be accused before his tribunal.[1012]

Not satisfied with conciliating the good-will of the people, Cæsar won
for himself the favour of the noblest dames of Rome; and,
notwithstanding his notorious passion for women, we cannot help
discovering a political aim in his choice of mistresses, since all held
by different ties to men who were then playing, or were destined to
play, an important part. He had had important relations with Tertulla,
the wife of Crassus; with Mucia, wife of Pompey; with Lollia, wife of
Aulus Gabinius, who was consul in 696; with Postumia, wife of Servius
Sulpicius, who was raised to the consulship in 703, and persuaded to
join Cæsar’s party by her influence; but the woman he preferred was
Servilia, sister of Cato and mother of Brutus, to whom, during his first
consulship, he gave a pearl valued at six millions of sestertii
(1,140,000 francs [£45,600]).[1013] This connection throws an air of
improbability over the reports in circulation that Servilia favoured an
intrigue between him and her daughter Tertia.[1014] Was it by the
intermediation of Tertulla that Crassus was reconciled with Cæsar? or
was that reconciliation due to the injustice of the Senate, and the
jealousy of Crassus towards Pompey? Whatever was the cause that brought
them together, Crassus seems to have made common cause with him in all
the questions in which he was interested, subsequent to the consulship
of Cicero.


[Sidenote: Attempt of Clodius (692).]

VIII. At this period a great scandal arose. A young and wealthy
patrician, named Clodius, an ambitious and violent man, conceived a
passion for Pompeia, Cæsar’s wife; but the strict vigilance of Aurelia,
her mother-in-law, made it difficult to find opportunities for meeting
privately.[1015] Clodius, disguised in female apparel, chose, for the
opportunity to enter her house, the moment when she was celebrating, by
night, attended by the matrons, mysteries in honour of the Roman
people.[1016] Now, it was forbidden to a male to be present at these
religious ceremonies, which it was believed that his presence even would
defile. Clodius, recognised by a female slave, was expelled with
ignominy. The pontiffs uttered the cry of sacrilege, and it became the
duty of the vestals to begin the mysteries anew. The nobles, who had
already met with an enemy in Clodius, saw in this act a means to compass
his overthrow, and at the same time to compromise Cæsar. The latter,
without condescending to inquire whether Pompeia was guilty or not,
repudiated her. A decree of the Senate, carried by four hundred votes
against fifteen, decided that Clodius must take his trial.[1017] He
defended himself by pleading an _alibi_; and, with the sole exception of
Aurelia, not a witness came forward against him. Cæsar himself, when
examined, declared that he knew nothing; and when asked to explain his
own conduct, replied, with equal regard to his honour and his interest,
“The wife of Cæsar must be above suspicion!” But Cicero, yielding to the
malicious suggestions of his wife Terentia, came forward to assert that
on the day of the event he had seen Clodius in Rome.[1018] The people
showed its sympathy with the latter, either because they deemed the
crime one that did not deserve a severe punishment, or because their
religious scruples were not so strong as their political passions.
Crassus, on his part, directed the whole intrigue, and lent the accused
funds sufficient to buy his judges. They acquitted him by a majority of
thirty-one to twenty-five.[1019]

The Senate, indignant at this contradiction, passed, on the motion of
Cato, a bill of indictment against the judges who had suffered
themselves to be bribed. But as they happened to be knights, the
equestrian order made common cause with them, and openly separated
themselves from the Senate. Thus the outrage of Clodius had two serious
consequences: first, it proved in a striking manner the venality of
justice; secondly, it once more threw the knights into the arms of the
popular party. But far other steps were taken to alienate them. The
farmers of the revenue demanded a reduction in the price of the rents of
Asia, on the ground that they had been leased to them at a price that
had become too high in consequence of the wars. The opposition of Cato
caused their demand to be refused. This refusal, though doubtless legal,
was, under the circumstances, in the highest degree impolitic.


[Sidenote: Pompey’s Triumphal Return (692).]

IX. Whilst at Rome dissensions were breaking out on all occasions,
Pompey had just brought the war in Asia to a close. Having defeated
Mithridates in two battles, he had compelled him to fly towards the
sources of the Euphrates, to pass thence into the north of Armenia, and
finally to cross thence to Dioscurias, in Colchis, on the western shore
of the Black Sea.[1020] Pompey had advanced as far as the Caucasus,
where he had defeated two mountain tribes, the Albanians and the
Iberians, who disputed his passage. When he had arrived within three
days’ march of the Caspian, having nothing more to fear from
Mithridates, and surrounded by barbarians, he began his retreat through
Armenia, where Tigranes came to tender his submission. Next, taking a
southerly course, he crossed Mount Taurus, attacked the King of
Commagene, fought a battle with the King of Media, invaded Syria, made
alliance with the Parthians, received the submission of the Nabathæan
Arabs and of Aristobulus, king of the Jews, and took Jerusalem.[1021]

During this period, Mithridates, whose energy and whose views appeared
to expand in proportion to his dangers and his reverses, was executing a
bold scheme. He had passed round by the eastern coast of the Black Sea,
and, allying himself with the Scythians and the peoples of the Crimea,
he had reached the shores of the Cimmerian Hellespont; but he had still
more gigantic designs in his mind. His idea was to open communications
with the Celts, and so reach the Danube, traverse Thrace, Macedonia, and
Illyria, cross the Alps, and, like Hannibal, descend upon Italy. Alone,
he was great enough to conceive this enterprise, but he was obliged to
give it up; his army deserted him, Pharnaces his son betrayed him, and
he committed suicide at Panticapæum (_Kertch_). By this event the vast
and rich territories that lie between the Caspian and the Red Sea were
placed at the disposal of Pompey. Pharnaces received the kingdom of the
Bosphorus. Tigranes, deprived of a portion of his dominions, only
preserved Armenia. Deiotarus, tetrarch of Galatia, obtained an increase
of territory, and Ariobarzanes obtained an enlargement of the kingdom of
Cappadocia, which was re-established in his favour. Various minor
princes devoted to the Roman interests received endowments, and
thirty-nine towns were rebuilt or founded. Finally, Pontus, Cilicia,
Syria, Phœnicia, declared to be Roman provinces, were obliged to
accept the constitution imposed upon them by the conqueror. These
countries received institutions which they preserved through several
centuries.[1022] All the shores of the Mediterranean, with the exception
of Egypt, became tributaries of Rome.

The war in Asia terminated, Pompey sent before him his lieutenant,
Pupius Piso Calpurnianus, who was soliciting the consulship, and who for
that reason requested an adjournment of the elections. This adjournment
was granted, and Piso unanimously elected consul for the year 693,[1023]
with M. Valerius Messala; to such a degree did the terror of Pompey’s
name make every one eager to grant what he desired. For no one knew his
designs; and it was feared lest, on his return, he should again march
upon Rome at the head of his victorious army. But Pompey, having landed
at Brundusium about the month of January, 693, disbanded his army, and
arrived at Rome, escorted only by the citizens who had gone out in
crowds to meet him.[1024]

After the first display of public gratitude, he found his reception
different from that on which he had reckoned, and domestic griefs came
to swell the catalogue of his disappointments. He had been informed of
the scandalous conduct of his wife Mutia during his absence, and
determined to repudiate her.[1025]

Envy, that scourge of a Republic, raged against him. The nobles did not
conceal their jealousy: it seemed as though they were taking revenge for
their own apprehensions, to which they were now adding their own
feelings of personal resentment. Lucullus had not forgiven him for
having frustrated his expectation of the command of the army of Asia.
Crassus was jealous of his renown; Cato, always hostile to those who
raised themselves above their fellows, could not be favourable to him,
and had even refused him the hand of his niece; Metellus Creticus
cherished a bitter remembrance of attempts which had been made to wrest
from him the merit of conquering Crete;[1026] and Metellus Celer was
offended at the repudiation of his sister Mutia.[1027] As for Cicero,
whose opinion of men varied according to their more or less deference
for his merit, he discovered that his hero of other days was destitute
of rectitude and greatness of soul.[1028] Pompey, foreseeing the
ill-feeling he was about to encounter, exerted all his influence, and
spent a large sum of money to secure the election of Afranius, one of
his old lieutenants, as consul. He reckoned upon him to obtain the two
things which he desired most: a general approval of all his acts in the
East, and a distribution of lands to his veterans. Notwithstanding
violent opposition, Afranius was elected with Q. Metellus Celer. But,
before proposing the laws which concerned him, Pompey, who till then had
not entered Rome, demanded a triumph. It was granted him, but for two
days only. However, the pageant was not less remarkable for its
splendour. It was held on the 29th and 30th of September, 693.

Before him were carried boards on which were inscribed the names of the
conquered countries, from Judæa to the Caucasus, and from the shores of
the Bosphorus to the banks of the Euphrates; the names of the towns and
the number of the vessels taken from the pirates; the names of
thirty-nine towns re-peopled; the amount of wealth brought in to the
treasury, amounting to 20,000 talents (more than 115 millions of francs
[£4,600,000]), without counting his largesses to his soldiers, of whom
he who received least had 1,500 drachmas (1,455 francs [£57]).[1029] The
public revenues, which before Pompey’s time amounted only to fifty
millions of drachmas (forty-eight millions and a half of francs [nearly
two millions sterling]), reached the amount of eighty-one millions and a
half (seventy-nine millions of francs [£3,160,000]). Among the precious
objects that were exposed before the eyes of the Romans was the
Dactylotheca (or collection of engraved stones) belonging to the King of
Pontus;[1030] a chessboard made of only two precious stones, but which,
nevertheless, measured four feet in length by three in breadth,
ornamented with a moon in gold, weighing thirty pounds; three couches
for dinner, of immense value; vases of gold and precious stones numerous
enough to load nine sideboards; thirty-three chaplets of pearls; three
gold statues, representing Minerva, Mars, and Apollo; a mountain of the
same metal, on a square base, decorated with fruits of all kinds, and
with figures of stags and lions, the whole encircled by a golden vine, a
present from King Aristobulus; a miniature temple dedicated to the
Muses, and provided with a clock; a couch of gold, said to have belonged
to Darius, son of Hystaspes; murrhine vases;[1031] a statue in silver of
Pharnaces, king of Pontus, the conqueror of Sinope, and the contemporary
of Philip III. of Macedon;[1032] a silver statue of the last
Mithridates, and a colossal bust of him in gold, eight cubits high,
together with his throne and sceptre; chariots armed with scythes, and
enriched with gilt ornaments;[1033] then, the portrait of Pompey
himself, embroidered in pearls. Lastly, trees were now introduced for
the first time as rare and precious objects: these were the ebony-tree
and the shrub which produces balsam.[1034] Before the chariot of Pompey
came the Cretan Lasthenes and Panares, taken from the triumph of
Metellus Creticus;[1035] the chiefs of the pirates; the son of Tigranes,
king of Armenia, his wife, and his daughter; the widow of the elder
Tigranes, called Zosima; Olthaces, chief of the Colchians; Aristobulus,
king of the Jews; the sister of Mithridates, with five of his sons; the
wives of the chieftains of Scythia; the hostages of the Iberians and
Albanians, and those of the princes of Commagene. Pompey was in a
chariot, adorned with jewels, and dressed in the costume of Alexander
the Great;[1036] and as he had already three times obtained the honours
of a triumph for his successes in Africa, Europe, and Asia, a grand
trophy was displayed, with this inscription, “Over the whole
world!”[1037]

So much splendour flattered the national pride, without disarming the
envious. Victories in the East had always been obtained without
extraordinary efforts, and therefore people had always depreciated their
merit, and Cato went so far as to say that in Asia a general had only
women to fight against.[1038] In the Senate, Lucullus, and other
influential men of consular rank, threw out the decree that was to
ratify all the acts of Pompey; and yet, to refuse to ratify either the
treaties concluded with the kings, or the exchange of the provinces, or
the amount of tribute imposed upon the vanquished, was as though they
questioned all that he had done. But they went still farther.

Towards the month of January, 694, the tribune L. Flavius proposed[1039]
to purchase and appropriate to Pompey’s veterans, for purposes of
colonisation, all the territory that had been declared public domain in
the year 521, and since sold; and to divide among the poor citizens the
_ager publicus_ of Volaterræ and Arretium, cities of Etruria, which had
been confiscated by Sylla, but not yet distributed.[1040] The expense
entailed by these measures was to be defrayed by five years’ revenue of
the conquered provinces.[1041] Cicero, who wished to gratify Pompey,
without damaging the interests of those he termed his rich
friends,[1042] proposed that the _ager publicus_ should be left intact,
but that other lands of equal value should be purchased. Nevertheless,
he was in favour of the establishment of colonies, though two years
before he had called the attention of his hearers to the danger of such
establishments; he was ready to admit that that dangerous populace,
those dregs of the city (_sentina urbis_), must be removed to a distance
from Rome, though in former days he had engaged that same populace to
remain in Rome, and enjoy their festivals, their games, and their
rights of suffrage.[1043] Finally, he proposed to buy private estates,
and leave the _ager publicus_ intact; whereas, in his speech against
Rullus, he had blamed the establishment of colonies on private estates
as a violation of all precedent.[1044] The eloquence of the orator,
which had been powerful enough to cause the rejection of the law of
Rullus, was unsuccessful in obtaining the adoption of that of Flavius;
it was attacked with such violence by the consul Metellus, that the
tribune caused him to be put in prison; but this act of severity having
met with a general disapproval, Pompey was alarmed at the scandal, and
bade Flavius set the consul at liberty, and abandoned the law. Sensitive
to so many insults, and seeing his prestige diminish, the conqueror of
Mithridates regretted that he had disbanded his army, and determined to
make common cause with Clodius, who then enjoyed an extraordinary
popularity.[1045]

About the same period, Metellus Nepos, who had returned a second time to
Italy with Pompey, was elected prætor, and obtained a law to abolish
tolls throughout Italy, the exaction of which had hitherto given rise to
loud complaints. This measure, which had probably been suggested by
Pompey and Cæsar, met with general approval; yet the Senate made an
unsuccessful attempt to have the name of the proposer erased from the
law: which shows, as Dio Cassius says, that that assembly accepted
nothing from its adversaries, not even an act of kindness.[1046]


[Sidenote: Destiny regulates Events.]

X. Thus all the forces of society, paralysed by intestine divisions, and
powerless for good, appeared to revive only for the purpose of throwing
obstacles in its way. Military glory and eloquence, those two
instruments of Roman power, inspired only distrust and envy. The triumph
of the generals was regarded not so much as a success for the Republic
as a source of personal gratification. The gift of eloquence still
exercised its ancient empire, so long as the orator remained upon the
tribune; but scarcely had he stepped down before the impression he had
made was gone; the people remained indifferent to brilliant displays of
rhetoric that were employed to encourage selfish passions, and not to
defend, as heretofore, the great interests of the fatherland.

It is well worthy of our attention that, when destiny is driving a state
of things towards an aim, there is, by a law of fate, a concurrence of
all forces in the same direction. Thither tend alike the attacks and the
hopes of those who seek change; thither tend the fears and the
resistance of those who would put a stop to every movement. After the
death of Sylla, Cæsar was the only man who persevered in his endeavours
to raise the standard of Marius. Hence nothing more natural than that
his acts and speeches should bend in the same direction. But the fact on
which we ought to fix our attention is, the spectacle of the partisans
of resistance and the system of Sylla, the opponents of all innovation,
helping, unconsciously, the progress of the events which smoothed for
Cæsar the way to supreme power.

Pompey, the representative of the cause of the Senate, gives the hardest
blow to the ancient régime by re-establishing the tribuneship. The
popularity which his prodigious successes in the East had won for him,
had raised him above all others; by nature, as well as by his
antecedents, he leaned to the aristocratic party; the jealousy of the
nobles throws him into the popular party and into the arms of Cæsar.

The Senate, on its part, while professing to aim at the preservation of
all the old institutions intact, abandons them in the presence of
danger; through jealousy of Pompey, it leaves to the tribunes the
initiative in all laws of general interest; through fear of Catiline, it
lowers the barriers that had been raised between new men and the
consulship, and confers that office upon Cicero. In the trial of the
accomplices of Catiline, it violates both the forms of justice and the
chief safeguard of the liberty of the citizens, the right of appeal to
the people. Instead of remembering that the best policy in circumstances
of peril is to confer upon men of importance some brilliant mark of
acknowledgment for the services they have rendered to the State, either
in good or bad fortune; instead of following, after victory, the example
given after defeat by the ancient Senate, which thanked Varro because he
had not despaired of the Republic, the Senate shows itself ungrateful to
Pompey, gives him no credit for his moderation, and, when it can
compromise him, and even bind him by the bonds of gratitude, it meets
his most legitimate demands with a refusal, a refusal which will teach
generals to come, that, when they return to Rome, though they have
increased the territory of the Commonwealth, though they have doubled
the revenues of the Republic, if they disband their army, the approval
of their acts will be disputed, and an attempt made to bargain with
their soldiers for the reward due to their glorious labours.

Cicero himself, who is desirous of maintaining the old state of things,
undermines it by his language. In his speeches against Verres, he
denounces the venality of the Senate, and the extortions of which the
provinces complain; in others, he unveils in a most fearful manner the
corruption of morals, the traffic in offices, and the dearth of
patriotism among the upper classes; in pleading for the Manilian law, he
maintains that there is need of a strong power in the hands of one
individual to ensure order in Italy and glory abroad; and it is after he
has exhausted all the eloquence at his command in pointing out the
excess of the evil and the efficacy of the remedy, that he thinks it is
possible to stay the stream of public opinion by the chilling counsel of
immobility.

Cato declared that he was for no innovations whatever; yet he made them
more than ever indispensable by his own opposition. No less than Cicero,
he threw the blame on the vices of society; but whilst Cicero wavered
often through the natural fickleness of his mind, Cato, with the
systematic tenacity of a stoic, remained inflexible in the application
of absolute rules. He opposed everything, even schemes of the greatest
utility; and, standing in the way of all concession, rendered personal
animosities as hard to reconcile as political factions. He had separated
Pompey from the Senate by causing all his proposals to be rejected; he
had refused him his niece, notwithstanding the advantage for his party
of an alliance which would have impeded the designs of Cæsar.[1047]
Regardless of the political consequences of a system of extreme rigour,
he had caused Metellus to be deposed when he was tribune, and Cæsar when
he was prætor; he caused Clodius to be put upon his trial; he impeached
his judges, without any foresight of the fatal consequences of an
investigation which called in question the honour of an entire order.
This immoderate zeal had rendered the knights hostile to the Senate;
they became still more so by the opposition offered by Cato to the
reduction of the price of the farms of Asia.[1048] And thus Cicero,
seeing things in their true light, wrote as follows to Atticus: “With
the best intentions in the world, Cato is ruining us: he judges things
as if we were living in Plato’s Republic, while we are only the dregs of
Romulus.”[1049]

Nothing, then, arrested the march of events; the party of resistance
hurried them forward more rapidly than any other. It was evident that
they progressed towards a revolution; and a revolution is like a river,
which overflows and inundates. Cæsar aimed at digging a bed for it.
Pompey, seated proudly at the helm, thought he could command the waves
that were sweeping him along. Cicero, always irresolute, at one moment
allowed himself to drift with the stream, at another thought himself
able to stem it with a fragile bark. Cato, immovable as a rock,
flattered himself that alone he could resist the irresistible stream
that was carrying away the old order of Roman society.



CHAPTER IV.

(693-695.)


[Sidenote: Cæsar Proprætor in Spain (693).]

I. Whilst at Rome ancient reputations were sinking in struggles
destitute alike of greatness and patriotism, others, on the contrary,
were rising in the camps, through the lustre of military glory. Cæsar,
on quitting his prætorship, had gone to Ulterior Spain (_Hispania
Ulterior_), which had been assigned to him by lot. His creditors had
vainly attempted to retard his departure: he had had recourse to the
credit of Crassus, who had been his security for the sum of 830 talents
(nearly five millions of francs [£200,000]).[1050] He had not even
waited for the instructions of the Senate,[1051] which, indeed, could
not be ready for some time, as that body had deferred all affairs
concerning the consular provinces till after the trial of Clodius, which
was only terminated in April, 693.[1052] This eagerness to reach his
post could not therefore be caused by fear of fresh prosecutions, as has
been supposed; but its motive was the desire to carry assistance to the
allies, who were imploring the protection of the Romans against the
mountaineers of Lusitania. Always devoted without reserve to those whose
cause he espoused,[1053] he took with him into Spain his client
Masintha, a young African of high birth, whose cause he had recently
defended at Rome with extreme zeal, and whom he had concealed in his
house after his condemnation,[1054] to save him from the persecutions of
Juba, son of Hiempsal, king of Numidia.

It is related that, in crossing the Alps, Cæsar halted at a village, and
his officers asked him, jocularly, if he thought that even in that
remote place there were solicitations and rivalries for offices. He
answered, gravely, “I would rather be first among these savages than
second in Rome.”[1055] This anecdote, which is more or less authentic,
is repeated as a proof of Cæsar’s ambition. Who doubts his ambition? The
important point to know is whether it were legitimate or not, and if it
were to be exercised for the salvation or the ruin of the Roman world.
After all, is it not more honourable to admit frankly the feelings which
animate us, than to conceal, as Pompey did, the ardour of desire under
the mask of disdain?

On his arrival in Spain, he promptly raised ten new cohorts, which,
joined to the twenty others already in the country, furnished him with
three legions, a force sufficient for the speedy pacification of the
province.[1056] Its tranquillity was incessantly disturbed by the
depredations of the inhabitants of Mount Herminium,[1057] who ravaged
the plain. He required them to establish themselves there, but they
refused. Cæsar then began a rough mountain war, and succeeded in
reducing them to submission. Terrified by this example, and dreading a
similar fate, the neighbouring tribes conveyed their families and their
most precious effects across the River Durius (_Douro_). The Roman
general hastened to profit by the opportunity, penetrated into the
valley of the Mondego to take possession of the abandoned towns, and
went in pursuit of the fugitives. The latter, on the point of being
overtaken, turned, and resolved to accept battle, driving their flocks
and herds before them, in the hope that, through this stratagem, the
Romans would leave their ranks in their eagerness to secure the booty,
and so be more easily overcome. But Cæsar was not the man to be caught
in this clumsy trap; he left the cattle, went straight at the enemy, and
routed them. Whilst occupied in the campaign in the north of Lusitania,
he learnt that in his rear the inhabitants of Mount Herminium had
revolted again with the design of closing the road by which he had come.
He then took another; but they made a further attempt to intercept his
passage by occupying the country between the Serra Albardos[1058] and
the sea. Defeated, and their retreat cut off, they were forced to fly in
the direction of the ocean, and took refuge in an island now called
_Peniche de Cima_, which, being no longer entirely separated from the
continent, has become a peninsula. It is situated about twenty-five
leagues from Lisbon.[1059] As Cæsar had no ships, he ordered rafts to
be constructed, on which some troops crossed. The rest thought that
they might venture through some shallows, which, at low tide, formed a
ford; but, desperately attacked by the enemy, they were, as they
retreated, engulphed by the rising tide. Publius Scævius, their chief,
was the only man who escaped, and he, notwithstanding his wounds,
succeeded in reaching the mainland by swimming. Subsequently, Cæsar
obtained some ships from Cadiz, crossed over to the island with his
army, and defeated the barbarians. Thence he sailed in the direction of
Brigantium (now _La Corogne_), the inhabitants of which, terrified at
the sight of the vessels, which were strange to them, surrendered
voluntarily.[1060] The whole of Lusitania became tributary to Rome.

Cæsar received from his soldiers the title of _Imperator_. When the news
of his successes reached Rome, the Senate decreed in his honour a
holiday,[1061] and granted him the right of a triumph on his return. The
expedition ended, the conqueror of the Lusitanians took in hand the
civil administration, and caused justice and concord to reign in his
province. He merited the gratitude of the Spaniards by suppressing the
tribute imposed by Metellus Pius during the war against Sertorius.[1062]
Above all, he applied himself to putting an end to the differences that
arose each day between debtors and creditors, by ordaining that the
former should devote, every year, two-thirds of their income to the
liquidation of their debts; a measure which, according to Plutarch,
brought him great honour.[1063] This measure was, in fact, an act which
tended to the preservation of property; it prevented the Roman usurers
from taking possession of a debtor’s entire capital to reimburse
themselves; and we shall see that Cæsar made it of general application
when he became dictator.[1064] Finally, having healed their dissensions,
he loaded the inhabitants of Cadiz with benefits, and left behind him
laws, the happy influence of which was felt for a long period. He
abolished among the people of Lusitania their barbarous customs, some of
which went as far as the sacrifice of human victims.[1065] It was there
that he became intimate with a man of consideration in Cadiz, L.
Cornelius Balbus, who became _magister fabrorum_ (chief engineer) during
his Gaulish wars, and who was defended by Cicero when his right of
Roman citizen was called in question.[1066]

Though he administered his province with the greatest equity, yet,
during his campaign, he had amassed a rich booty, which enabled him to
reward his soldiers, and to pay considerable sums into the treasury
without being accused of peculation or of arbitrary acts. His conduct as
prætor of Spain[1067] was praised by all, and among others by Mark
Antony, in a speech pronounced after Cæsar’s death.

It was not then, as Suetonius pretends, by the begging of
subsidies[1068] (for a general hardly begs at the head of an army), nor
was it by an abuse of power, that he amassed such enormous riches; he
obtained them by contributions of war, by a good administration, and
even by the gratitude of those whom he had governed.

[Illustration: IV MAP OF THE PENINSULA OF PENICHE.]


[Sidenote: Cæsar demands a Triumph and the Consulship (694).]

II. Cæsar returned to Rome towards the month of June[1069] without
waiting for the arrival of his successor. This return, which the
historians describe as hasty, was by no means so, since his regular
authority had expired in the month of January, 694. But he was
determined to be present at the approaching meeting of the consular
comitia; he presented himself with confidence, and whilst preparing for
his triumph, demanded at the same time permission to become a candidate
for the consulship. Invested with the title of _Imperator_, having, by a
rapid conquest, extended the limits of the empire to the northern shores
of the Ocean, he might justly aspire to this double distinction; but it
was granted with difficulty. To obtain a triumph, it was necessary to
remain without the walls of Rome, to retain the lictors and continue the
military uniform, and to wait till the Senate should fix the date of
entry. To solicit for the consulship, it was necessary, on the contrary,
to be present in Rome, clad in a white robe,[1070] the costume of those
who were candidates for public offices, and to reside there several days
previous to the election. The Senate had not always considered these two
demands incompatible:[1071] it would perhaps even have granted this
indulgence to Cæsar, had not Cato, by speaking till the end of the day,
rendered all deliberation impossible.[1072] He had not, however, been so
severe in 684; but it was because, on that occasion, Pompey was
triumphing in reality over Sertorius, that foe to the aristocracy,
though officially it was only talked of as a victory over the
Spaniards.[1073] Constrained to choose between an idle pageant and real
power, Cæsar did not hesitate.

The ground had been well prepared for his election. His popularity had
been steadily on the increase; and the Senate, too much elated by its
successes, had estranged those who possessed the greatest influence.
Pompey, discontented at the uniform refusals with which his just demands
had been met, knew well also that the recent law, declaring enemies of
the State those who bribed the electors, was a direct attack against
himself, since he had openly paid for the election of the consul
Afranius; but, always infatuated with his own personal attractions, he
consoled himself for his checks by strutting about in his gaudy
embroidered robe.[1074] Crassus, who had long remained faithful to the
aristocratic party, had become its enemy, on account of the
ill-disguised jealousy of the nobles towards him, and their intrigues to
implicate him with Cæsar in the conspiracy of Catiline. However, though
he held in his hands the strings of many an intrigue, he was fearful of
compromising himself, and shrank from _declaring in public against any
man in credit_.[1075] Lucullus, weary of warfare and of intestine
struggles, was withdrawing from politics in order to enjoy his vast
wealth in tranquillity. Catulus was dead, and the majority of the nobles
were ready to follow the impulse given them by certain enthusiastic
senators who, caring little about public affairs, thought themselves the
happiest of men if they had _in their fishponds carp sufficiently tamed
to come and eat out of their hands_.[1076] Cicero felt his own solitary
position. The nobles, whose angry feelings he had served, now that the
peril was over, regarded him as no better than an upstart. Therefore he
prudently changed his principles; he, the exterminator of conspirators,
had become the defender of P. Sylla, one of Catiline’s accomplices, and
procured his acquittal in the teeth of the evidence;[1077] he, the
energetic opponent of all partitions of land, had spoken in favour of
the agrarian law of Flavius. He wrote to Atticus, “I have seen that
those men whose happiness belongs to the passing hour, those illustrious
lovers of fishponds, are no longer able to conceal their jealousy of me;
so I have sought more solid support.”[1078]

In a word, he had made overtures to Pompey, though in secret he admitted
that he possessed neither greatness of mind nor nobleness of heart. “He
only knows how to curry favour and flatter the people,” he said; “and
here am I bound to him on such terms that our interest, as individuals,
is served thereby; and, as statesmen, we can both act with greater
firmness. The ill-will of our ardent and unprincipled youth had been
excited against me. I have been so successful in bringing it round by my
address, that at present it cares for no one but me. Finally, I am
careful to wound no man’s feelings, and that without servileness or
popularity-hunting. My entire conduct is so well planned, that, as a
public man, I yield in nothing; and as a private individual, who knows
the weakness of honest men, the injustice of the envious, and the hatred
of the wicked, I take my precautions, and act with prudence.”[1079]

Cicero deceived himself with regard to the causes of his change of
party, and did not acknowledge to himself the reasons that constrained
him to look out for powerful patrons. Like all men destitute of force of
character, instead of openly confessing the motives of his conduct, he
justified himself to his friends by pretending that, so far from having
altered his own opinions, it was he who was converting Pompey, and would
soon make the same experiment upon Cæsar. “You rally me pleasantly,” he
wrote to Atticus, “on the subject of my intimacy with Pompey; but do not
fancy that I have contracted it out of regard for my personal safety. It
is all the effect of circumstances. When there was the slightest
disagreement between us, there was trouble in the State. I have laid my
plans and made my conditions, so that, without laying aside my own
principles, which are good, I have led him to better sentiments. He is
somewhat cured of his madness for popularity.... If I am equally
successful with Cæsar, whose ship is now sailing under full canvas,
shall I have done great harm to the State?”[1080] Cicero, like all men
whose strength lies in eloquence, felt that he could play no important
part, or even secure his own personal safety, unless he allied himself
with men of the sword.

Whilst at Rome the masters of the world were wasting their time in mean
quarrels, alarming news came suddenly to create a diversion in political
intrigue. Information was brought that the Gaulish allies on the banks
of the Saône had been defeated by the Germans, that the Helvetii were in
arms, and making raids beyond the frontiers. The terror was universal.
Fears were entertained of a fresh invasion of the Cimbri and Teutones;
and, as always happened on such occasions, a general levy, without
exception, was ordered.[1081] The consuls of the previous year drew lots
for their provinces, and it was decided to dispatch commissioners to
come to an understanding with the Gaulish tribes, with a view to resist
foreign invasions. The names of Pompey and Cicero were at once
pronounced; but the Senate, influenced by different motives, declared
that their presence was too necessary in Rome to allow them to be sent
away. They were unwilling to give the former an opportunity of again
distinguishing himself, or to deprive themselves of the concurrence of
the latter.


[Sidenote: Alliance of Cæsar, Pompey, and Crassus.]

III. News of a more re-assuring character having been received from
Gaul, the fear of war ceased for a time, and things had returned to
their customary course when Cæsar came home from Spain. In the midst of
conflicting opinions and interests, the presence of a man of steady
purpose and deeply-rooted convictions, and illustrious through recent
victories, was, without any doubt, an event. He did not require long to
form his estimate of the situation; and, as he could not as yet unite
the masses by the realisation of a grand idea, he thought to unite the
chiefs by a common interest.

All his endeavours from that time were devoted to making Pompey,
Crassus, and Cicero share his ideas. The first had been rather ill
disposed towards him. On his return from his campaign against
Mithridates, Pompey had called Cæsar his Egistheus,[1082] in allusion to
the intrigue which he had had with his wife Mutia, whilst he, like
Agamemnon, was making war in Asia. Resentment, on this account, usually
slight enough among the Romans, soon disappeared before the exigencies
of political life. As for Crassus, who had long been separated from
Pompey by a jealous feeling of rivalry, it needed all Cæsar’s tact, and
all the seduction of his manners, to induce him to become reconciled
with his rival. But, to bring them both to follow the same line of
conduct, it was necessary, over and above this, to tempt them with such
powerful motives as would ensure conviction. The historians, in general,
have given no other reason to account for the agreement of these three
men than personal interest. Doubtless, Pompey and Crassus were not
insensible to a combination that favoured their love of power and
wealth; but we ought to lend Cæsar a more elevated motive, and suppose
him inspired by a genuine patriotism.

The condition of the Republic must have appeared thus to his
comprehensive grasp of thought:--The Roman dominion, stretched, like
some vast figure, across the world, clasps it in her sinewy arms; and
whilst her limbs are full of life and strength, the heart is wasting by
decay. Unless some heroic remedy be applied, the contagion will soon
spread from the centre to the extremities, and the mission of Rome will
remain unfinished!--Compare with the present the prosperous days of the
Republic. Recollect the time when envoys from foreign nations, doing
homage to the policy of the Senate, declared openly that they preferred
the protecting sovereignty of Rome to independence itself. Since that
period, what a change has taken place! All nations execrate the power of
Rome, and yet that power preserves them from still greater evils. Cicero
is right, “Let Asia think well of it: there is not one of the woes that
are bred of war and civil strife, that she would not experience did she
cease to live under our laws.”[1083] And this advice may be applied to
all the countries whither the legions have penetrated. If, then, fate
has willed that the nations are to be subject to the sway of a single
people, it is the duty of that people, as charged with the execution of
the eternal decrees, to be, towards the vanquished, as just and
equitable as the Divinity, since he is as inexorable as destiny. How are
we to fix a limit to the arbitrary conduct of proconsuls and proprætors,
which all the laws promulgated for so many years have been powerless to
check? How put a stop to the exactions committed at all points of the
empire, if a firmer and stronger direction do not emanate from the
central power?--The Republic pursues an irregular system of
encroachment, which will exhaust its resources; it is impossible for her
to fight against all nations at once, and at the same time to maintain
her allies in their allegiance, if, by unjust treatment, they are driven
to revolt. The enemies of the Republic must be diminished in number by
restoring their freedom to the cities which are worthy of it,[1084] and
acknowledging as friends of the Roman people those nations with whom
there is a chance of living in peace.[1085] Our most dangerous enemies
are the Gauls, and it is against this turbulent and warlike nation that
all the strength of the State ought to be directed.--In Italy, and under
this name Cisalpine Gaul must be included, how many citizens are
deprived of political rights! At Rome, how many of the proletaries are
living on the charity either of the rich or of the State! Why should we
not extend the Roman commune as far as the Alps, and why not augment the
race of labourers and soldiers by making them landowners? The Roman
people must be raised in its own eyes, and the Republic in the eyes of
the world!--Absolute liberty of speech and of vote was a great benefit,
when, modified by morality, and restrained by a powerful aristocracy, it
gave scope to individual faculties without damaging the general
well-being; but, ever since the morality of ancient days disappeared
with the aristocracy, we have seen the laws become weapons of war for
the use of parties, the elections a traffic, the forum a battle-field;
while liberty is nothing more than a never-ending cause of weakness and
decay.--Our institutions cause such uncertainty in our councils, and
such independence in our offices of State, that we search in vain for
that spirit of order and control which are indispensable elements in the
maintenance of so vast an empire. Without overthrowing institutions
which have given five centuries of glory to the Republic, it is
possible, by a close union of the most worthy citizens, to establish in
the State a moral authority, which governs the passions, tempers the
laws, gives a greater stability to power, directs the elections,
maintains the representatives of the Roman people in their duty, and
frees us from the two most serious dangers of the present: the
selfishness of the nobles and the turbulence of the mob. This is what
they may realise by their union; their disunion, on the contrary, will
only encourage the fatal conduct of these men who are endangering the
future equally, some by their opposition, the others by their headlong
violence.

These considerations must have been easily understood by Pompey and
Crassus, who had themselves been actors in such great events, witnesses
of so much blood shed in civil wars, of so many noble ideas, triumphing
at one moment and overthrown the next. They accepted Cæsar’s proposal,
and thus was concluded an alliance which is wrongly termed the First
Triumvirate.[1086] As for Cicero, Cæsar tried to persuade him to join
the compact which had just been formed, but he refused to become one of
what he termed a party of friends.[1087] Always uncertain in his
conduct, always divided between his admiration for those who held the
sovereign power, and his engagements with the oligarchy, and uneasy for
the future which his foresight could not penetrate, he set his mind to
work to prevent the success of every measure which he approved as soon
as it had succeeded. The alliance which these three persons ratified by
their oaths,[1088] remained long a secret; and it was only during
Cæsar’s consulship that it became matter of public notoriety from the
unanimity they displayed in all their political resolutions. Cæsar,
then, set energetically to work to unite in his own favour every chance
that could render his election certain.


[Sidenote: Cæsar’s Election.]

IV. Among the candidates was L. Lucceius. Cæsar was desirous of
attaching to his cause this person, who was distinguished alike by his
writings and his character,[1089] and who, possessed of vast wealth, had
promised to make abundant use of it for their common profit, in order to
command the majority of votes in the centuries. “The aristocratic
faction,” says Suetonius, “on learning this arrangement, was seized with
fear. They thought that there was nothing which Cæsar would not attempt
in the exercise of the sovereign magistracy, if he had a colleague who
agreed with him, and who would support all his designs.”[1090] The
nobles, unable to eject him, resolved to give him Bibulus for a
colleague, who had already been his colleague in the edileship and the
prætorship, and had constantly shown himself his opponent. They all made
a pecuniary contribution to influence the elections; Bibulus spent large
sums,[1091] and the incorruptible Cato himself, who had solemnly sworn
to impeach any one who should be guilty of bribery, contributed his
quota, owning that for the interest of the State his principles must for
once yield.[1092] Neither was Cicero more inflexible: some time before,
he expressed to Atticus the necessity of purchasing the concurrence of
the equestrian order.[1093] We can see how even the most honourable were
swept along, by the force of events, in the current of a corrupt
society.

By the force of public opinion, and by the support of the two men of
greatest influence, Cæsar was elected consul unanimously, and conducted,
according to custom, from the Campus Martius to his own house by an
enthusiastic crowd of his fellow-citizens, and a vast number of
senators.[1094]

If the party opposed to Cæsar had been unable to stand in the way of his
becoming consul, it did not despair of preventing his playing the
important part he had a right to expect as proconsul. To effect this,
the Senate determined to evade the law of Caius Gracchus, which, to
prevent the assignment of provinces from personal considerations,
provided that it should take place before the comitia were held. The
assembly, therefore, departing from the rule, assigned to Cæsar and his
colleague, by an act of flagrant ill-will, the supervision of the public
roads and forests; an office somewhat similar, it is true, to that of
governor of a province.[1095] This humiliating appointment, proof as it
was of a persevering hostility, wounded him deeply; but the duties of
his new office imposed silence upon his resentments. Cæsar the consul
would forget the wrongs done to Cæsar the man, and generously attempt a
policy of conciliation.



CHAPTER V.

CONSULSHIP OF CÆSAR AND BIBULUS.

(695.)


[Sidenote: Attempts at Conciliation.]

I. Cæsar has arrived at the first magistracy of the Republic. Consul
with Bibulus at the age of forty-one, he has not yet acquired the just
celebrity of Pompey, nor does he enjoy the treasures of Crassus, and yet
his influence is perhaps greater than that of those two personages.
Political influence, indeed, does not depend solely on military
successes or on the possession of immense riches; it is acquired
especially by a conduct always in accord with fixed convictions. Cæsar
alone represents a principle. From the age of eighteen, he has faced the
anger of Sylla and the hostility of the aristocracy, in order to plead
unceasingly the grievances of the oppressed and the rights of the
provinces.

So long as he is not in power, being exempt from responsibility, he
walks invariably in the way he has traced, listens to no compromise,
pursues unsparingly the adherents of the opposite party, and maintains
his opinions energetically, at the risk of wounding his adversaries;
but, once consul, he lays aside all resentment, and makes a loyal appeal
to all who will rally round him; he declares to the Senate that he will
not act without its concurrence, that he will propose nothing contrary
to its prerogatives.[1096] He offers his colleague Bibulus a generous
reconciliation, conjuring him, in the presence of the senators, to put a
term to differences of opinion, the effects of which, already so much to
be regretted during their common edileship and prætorship, would become
fatal in their new position.[1097] He makes advances to Cicero, and,
after sending Cornelius Balbus to him in his villa of Antium to assure
him that he is ready to follow his counsels and those of Pompey, offers
to take him as an associate in his labours.[1098]

Cæsar must have believed that these offers of co-operation would be
embraced. In face of the perils of a society deeply agitated, he
supposed that others had the same sentiments which animated himself.
Love of the public good, and the consciousness of having entirely
devoted himself to it, gave him that confidence without reserve in the
patriotism of others which admits neither mean rivalries nor the
calculations of selfishness: he was deceived. The Senate showed nothing
but prejudices, Bibulus, but rancours, Cicero, but a false pride.

It was essential for Cæsar to unite Pompey, who was wanting in firmness
of character, more closely with his destinies; he gave him in marriage
his daughter Julia, a young woman of twenty-three years of age, richly
endowed with graces and intelligence, who had already been affianced to
Servilius Cæpio. To compensate the latter, Pompey promised him his own
daughter, though she also was engaged to another, to Faustus, the son of
Sylla. Soon afterwards Cæsar espoused Calpurnia, the daughter of Lucius
Piso.[1099] Cato protested energetically against these marriages, which
he qualified as disgraceful traffics with the common weal.[1100] The
nobles, and especially the two Curios, made themselves the echoes of
this reprobation. Their party, nevertheless, did not neglect to
strengthen themselves by such alliances. Doubtless, when Cato gave his
daughter to Bibulus, it was for a political motive; and when he ceded
his own wife to Hortensius,[1101] although the mother of three children,
to take her back again when enriched by the death of her last husband,
there was also an interest hardly honourable, which Cæsar subsequently
unveiled in a book entitled _Anti-Cato_.[1102]

The first care of the new consul was to establish the practice of
publishing daily the acts of the Senate and those of the people, in
order that public opinion might bear with all its weight upon the
resolutions of the conscript fathers, whose deliberations had previously
been often secret.[1103] The initiative taken by Cæsar from the
commencement of his consulship, in questioning the senators on the
projects of laws, is an evidence that he had the fasces before Bibulus.
We know, in fact, that the consuls enjoyed this honour alternately for a
month, and it was in the period when they were invested with the signs
distinctive of power that they were permitted to ask the advice of the
senators.[1104]


[Sidenote: Agrarian Laws.]

II. He proposed next, in the month of January, an agrarian law founded
upon wise principles, and which respected all legitimate rights. The
following were its principal provisions:--

Partition of all the free part of the _ager publicus_, except that of
Campania and that of Volaterræ; the first excepted originally on account
of its great fertility,[1105] and the second guaranteed to all those who
had got it into their possession.[1106]--In case of insufficiency of
territory, new acquisitions, by means either of money coming from
Pompey’s conquests, or from the overplus of the public
revenues.--Prohibition of all appropriation by force.--The nomination of
twenty commissioners to preside at the distribution of the lands, with
exclusion of the author of the proposal.--Estimate of private lands for
sale, made according to the declaration at the last census, and not
according to the valuation of the commissioners.--Obligation upon each
senator to swear obedience to the law, and to engage never to propose
anything contrary to it.

It was, as may be seen, the project of Rullus, relieved from the
inconveniences pointed out with so much eloquence by Cicero. In fact,
instead of ten commissioners, Cæsar proposed twenty, in order to
distribute among a greater number a power of which men feared the abuse.
He himself, to avoid all suspicion of personal interest, excluded
himself from the possibility of forming part of it. The commissioners
were not, as in the law of Rullus, authorised to act according to their
will, and tax the properties arbitrarily. Acquired rights were
respected; those territories only were distributed of which the State
had still the full disposal. The sums arising from Pompey’s conquests
were to be employed in favour of the old soldiers; and Cæsar said
himself that it was just to give the profit of that money to those who
had gained it at the peril of their lives.[1107] As to the obligation of
the oath imposed upon the senators, it was not an innovation, but an
established custom. In the present case, the law having been voted
before the elections, all the candidates, and especially the tribunes of
the following year, had to take the engagement to observe it.[1108]

“Nobody,” says Dio Cassius,[1109] “had reason for complaint on this
subject. The population of Rome, the excessive increase of which had
been the principal aliment of seditions, was called to labour and a
country life; the greater part of the countries of Italy, which had lost
their inhabitants, were re-peopled. This law insured means of existence
not only to those who had supported the fatigues of the war, but also to
all the other citizens, without causing expenditure to the State or
loss to the nobles; on the contrary, it gave to several honours and
power.”

Thus, while some historians accuse Cæsar of seeking in the populace of
Rome the point of support for his ambitious designs, he, on the
contrary, obtains a measure, the effect of which is to transport the
turbulent part of the inhabitants of the capital into the country.

Cæsar, then, read his project to the Senate; after which, calling the
senators by their names, one after the other, he asked the opinion of
each, declaring his readiness to modify the law, or withdraw it
altogether, if it were not agreeable to them. But, according to Dio
Cassius, “It was unassailable, and, if any disapproved of it, none dared
to oppose it; what afflicted its opponents most was, that it was drawn
up in such a manner as to leave no room for a complaint.”[1110] So the
opposition was limited to adjourning from time to time, under frivolous
pretexts. Cato, without making a direct opposition, alleged the
necessity of changing nothing in the constitution of the Republic, and
declared himself the adversary of all kind of innovation; but, when the
moment came for voting, he had recourse again to his old tactics, and
rendered all deliberation impossible by speaking the entire day, by
which he had already succeeded in depriving Cæsar of the triumph.[1111]
The latter lost patience, and sent the obstinate orator to prison; Cato
was followed by a great number of senators, and M. Petreius, one of
them, replied to the consul, who reproached him for withdrawing before
the meeting was closed: “I would rather be in prison with Cato than here
with thee.” Regretting, however, this first movement of anger, and
struck by the attitude of the assembly, Cæsar immediately restored Cato
to liberty; then he dismissed the Senate, addressing them in the
following words: “I had made you supreme judges and arbiters of this
law, in order that, if any one of its provisions displeased you, it
should not be referred to the people; but, since you have refused the
previous deliberation, the people alone shall decide it.”

His attempt at conciliation having failed with the Senate, he renewed it
towards his colleague, and, in the assembly of the tribes, adjured
Bibulus to support his proposal. On their side, the people joined their
entreaties with those of Cæsar; but Bibulus, inflexible, merely said:
“You will not prevail with me, though you were all of one voice; and, as
long as I shall be consul, I will suffer no innovation.”[1112]

Then Cæsar, judging other influences necessary, appealed to Pompey and
Crassus. Pompey seized happily this opportunity for speaking to the
people: he said that he not only approved the agrarian law, but that the
senators themselves had formerly admitted the principle, in decreeing,
on his return from Spain, a distribution of lands to his soldiers and to
those of Metellus; if this measure had been deferred, it was on account
of the penury of the treasury, which, thanks to him, had now ceased.
Then, replying to Cæsar, who asked him if he would support the law in
case it were opposed by violence, “If any one dared to draw his sword,”
he cried, “I would take even my buckler;” meaning by that, that he would
come into the public place armed as for the combat. This bold
declaration of Pompey, supported by Crassus and Cæpio,[1113] silenced
all opposition except that of Bibulus, who, with three tribunes his
partisans, called an assembly of the Senate in his own house, where it
was resolved that at all risk the law should be openly rejected.[1114]

The day of meeting of the comitia having been fixed, the populace
occupied the Forum during the night. Bibulus hurried with his friends to
the temple of Castor, where his colleague was addressing the multitude;
he tried in vain to obtain a hearing, was thrown down from the top of
the steps, and obliged to fly, after seeing his fasces broken to pieces
and two tribunes wounded. Cato, in his turn, tried to mount the rostra;
expelled by force, he returned, but, instead of treating of the
question, seeing that nobody listened to him, he attacked Cæsar with
bitterness, until he was dragged a second time from the tribune. Calm
being restored, the law was adopted. Next day Bibulus tried to propose
to the Senate its abrogation; but nobody supported him, such was the
effect of this burst of popular enthusiasm;[1115] from this moment he
took the part of shutting himself up at home during the residue of
Cæsar’s consulship. When the latter presented a new law on the days of
the comitia, he contented himself with protesting, and with sending by
his lictors to say that he was observing the sky, and that consequently
all deliberation was illegal.[1116] This was to proclaim loudly the
political aim of this formality.

Cæsar was far from yielding to this religious scruple, which, indeed,
had lost its authority. At this very time Lucullus wrote a bold poem
against the popular credulity, and for some time the observation of the
auspices had been regarded as a puerile superstition; two centuries and
a half before, a great captain had given a remarkable proof of this.
Hannibal, then a refugee at the court of King Prusias, engaged the
latter to accept his plans of campaign against the Romans; the king
refused, because the auspices had not been favourable. “What!” cried
Hannibal, “have you more confidence in a miserable calf’s liver than in
the experience of an old general like me?”[1117]

Be this as it may, the obligation not to hold the comitia while the
magistrate was observing the sky was a law; and to excuse himself for
not having observed it, as well as to prevent his acts from being
declared null, Cæsar, before quitting his office, brought the question
before the Senate, and thus obtained a legal ratification of his
conduct.

The law being adopted by the people, each senator was called to take his
oath to observe it. Several members, and, among others, Q. Metellus
Celer, M. Cato, and M. Favonius,[1118] had declared that they would
never submit to it; but when the day of taking the oath arrived, their
protests vanished before the fear of the punishment decreed against
those who abstained, and, except Laterensis, everybody, even Cato, took
the oath.[1119]

Irritated at the obstacles which he had encountered, and sure of the
approval of the people, Cæsar included, by a new law, in the
distribution of the public domain, the lands of Campania and of Stella,
omitted before out of deference to the Senate.[1120]

In carrying the law into effect, Pompey’s veterans received lands at
Casilinum, in Campania;[1121] at Minturnæ, Lanuvium, Volturnum, and
Aufidena, in Samnium; and at Bovianum; Clibæ, and Veii, in
Etruria;[1122] twenty thousand fathers of families having more than
three children were established in Campania, so that about a hundred
thousand persons became husbandmen, and re-peopled with free men a great
portion of the territory, while Rome was relieved from a populace which
was inconvenient and debased. Capua became a Roman colony, which was a
restoration of the democratic work of Marius, destroyed by Sylla.[1123]
It appears that the _ager_ of Leontinum, in Sicily, was also comprised
in the agrarian law.[1124] The nomination of the twenty commissioners,
chosen among the most commendable of the consulars, was next proceeded
with.[1125] Of the number were C. Cosconius and Atius Balbus, the
husband of Cæsar’s sister. Clodius could not obtain admission among
them,[1126] and Cicero, after the death of Cosconius, refused to take
his place.[1127] The latter, in his letters to Atticus, blames
especially the distribution of the territory of Capua, as depriving the
Republic of an important revenue; and inquires what will remain to the
State, unless it be the twentieth on the enfranchisement of slaves,
since the rights of toll had already been abandoned through the whole of
Italy; but it was objected with reason that, on the other hand, the
State was relieved from the enormous charges imposed by the necessity of
distributing wheat to all the poor of Rome.

Nevertheless, the allotment of the _ager Campanus_ and of the _ager_ of
Stella met with many delays; it was not yet terminated in 703, since at
that epoch Pompey was advised to hasten the distribution of the
last-mentioned lands, in order that Cæsar, on his return from Gaul,
might not have the merit of it.[1128]


[Sidenote: Cæsar’s various Laws.]

III. We have seen how, in previous years, Cato was instrumental in
refusing the request of those who farmed the taxes of Asia to have the
terms of their leases lowered. By this rigorous measure, the Senate had
estranged from itself the equestrian order, whose complaints had been
far from unreasonable. In fact, the price paid for the farming of the
revenues of Asia had been heavy during the war against Mithridates, as
may be learnt from the speech of Cicero against the Manilian Law; and
the remission of a portion of the money due to the State was a measure
not without some show of justice to excuse it. Cæsar, when he became
consul, influenced by a sense of justice no less than by policy, lost no
time in proposing a law to remit to the farmers of the revenue one-third
of the sums for which they were responsible.[1129] He first addressed
himself to the Senate; but that body having refused to deliberate on the
question, he found himself compelled to submit it to the people,[1130]
who adopted his opinion. This liberality, so far beyond what they had
hoped for, filled the farmers of the revenue with joy, and rendered them
devoted to the man who showed himself so generous: he advised them,
however, publicly, to be more careful in future, and not overbid in an
inconsiderate manner at the time of the sale of the taxes.[1131]

The agrarian law, and the law concerning the rents, having satisfied the
interests of the proletaries, the veterans, and the knights, it became
important to settle the just demands of Pompey. Therefore Cæsar obtained
from the people their approbation of all the acts of the conqueror of
Mithridates.[1132] Lucullus had been till then one of the most earnest
adversaries of this measure. He could not forget the glory of which
Pompey had frustrated him; but his dread of a prosecution for peculation
was so great, that he fell at Cæsar’s feet, and forswore all
opposition.[1133]

The activity of the consul did not confine itself to internal reforms;
it extended to questions which were raised abroad. The condition of
Egypt was precarious: King Ptolemy Auletes, natural son of Ptolemy
Lathyrus, was afraid lest, in virtue of a forged will of Ptolemy
Alexander, or Alexas, to whose fall he had contributed, his kingdom
might be incorporated with the Roman Empire.[1134] Auletes, perceiving
his authority shaken in Alexandria, had sought the support of Pompey
during the war in Judæa, and had sent him presents, and a large sum of
money, to engage him to maintain his cause before the Senate.[1135]
Pompey had offered himself as his advocate; and Cæsar, whether from
policy, or from a wish to please his son-in-law, caused Ptolemy Auletes
to be declared a friend and ally of Rome.[1136] At his demand, the same
favour was granted to Ariovistus, king of the Germans, who, after having
made war upon the Ædui, had withdrawn from their country at the
invitation of the Senate, and had expressed a desire to become an ally
of Rome. It was entirely the interest of the Republic to conciliate the
Germans, and send them to the other bank of the Rhine, whatever might be
the views of the consul regarding his future command in Gaul.[1137]
Next, he conferred some privileges on certain municipia and satisfied
many ambitions; “for,” says Suetonius, “he granted everything that was
asked of him: no man dared oppose him, and, if any one attempted, he
knew how to intimidate him.”[1138]

Among the cares of the consul was the nomination of tribunes devoted to
him, since it was they generally who proposed the laws for the people to
ratify.

Clodius, on account of his popularity, was one of the candidates who
could be most useful to him; but his rank of patrician obliged him to
pass by adoption into a plebeian family before he could be elected, and
that he could only do in virtue of a law. Cæsar hesitated in bringing it
forward; for if, on the one hand, he sought to conciliate Clodius
himself, on the other, he knew his designs of vengeance against Cicero,
and was unwilling to put into his hands an authority which he might
abuse. But when, towards the month of March, at the trial of C.
Antonius, charged with disgraceful conduct in Macedonia, Cicero, in
defending his former colleague, indulged in a violent attack upon those
in power, on that same day Clodius was received into the ranks of the
plebeians,[1139] and soon afterwards became, together with Vatinius,
tribune-elect.[1140] There was a third tribune, whose name is unknown,
but who was equally won over to the interests of the consul.[1141]

Thus Cæsar, as even Cicero admits, was alone more powerful already than
the Republic.[1142] Of some he was the hope; of others, the terror; of
all, master irrevocably. The inactivity of Bibulus had only served to
increase his power.[1143] Thus it was said in Rome, as a jest, that men
knew of no other consulship than that of Julius and Caius Cæsar, making
two persons out of a single name; and the following verses were handed
about:--

    “Non Bibulo quidquam nuper sed Cæsare factum est:
      Nam Bibulo fieri consule nil memini.”[1144]

And as popular favour, when it declares itself in favour of a man in a
conspicuous position, sees something marvellous in everything that
concerns his person, the populace drew a favourable augury from the
existence of an extraordinary horse born in his stables. Its hoofs were
forked, and shaped like fingers. Cæsar was the only man who could tame
this strange animal, the docility of which, it was said, foreboded to
him the empire of the world.[1145]

During his first consulship, Cæsar caused a number of laws to be passed,
the greater part of which have not descended to us. Some valuable
fragments, however, of the most important ones have been preserved, and
among others, the modifications in the sacerdotal privileges. The
tribune Labienus, as we have seen, in order to secure Cæsar’s election
to the office of pontiff, had granted the right of election to seventeen
tribes selected by lot. Although this law seemed to authorise absentees
to become candidates for the priesthood, the people and the priests
disputed the right of those who did not solicit the dignity in person.
Endless quarrels and disturbances were the result. To put an end to
these, Cæsar, while confirming the law of Labienus, announced that not
only those candidates who appeared in person, but those at a distance
also, who had any title whatever to that honour, might offer themselves
as candidates.[1146]

He turned his attention next to the provinces, whose condition had
always excited his sympathy. The law intended to reform the vices of the
administration (_De provinciis ordinandis_) is of uncertain date; it
bears the same title as that of Sylla, and resembles it considerably.
Its provisions guaranteed the inhabitants against the violence, the
arbitrary conduct, and the corruption of the proconsuls and proprætors,
and fixed the allotments to which these were entitled.[1147]

It released the free states, _liberæ civitates_, from dependence upon
governors, and authorised them to govern themselves by their own laws
and their own magistrates.[1148] Cicero himself considered this measure
as the guarantee of the liberty of the provinces;[1149] for, in his
speech against Piso, he reproaches him with having violated it by
including free nations in his government of Macedonia.[1150] Lastly, a
separate proviso regulated the responsibility and expenses of the
administration, by requiring that on going out of office the governors
should deliver, at the end of thirty days, an account explaining their
administration and their expenses, of which three copies were to be
deposited, one in the treasury (_ærarium_) at Rome, and the others in
the two principal towns of the province.[1151] The proprætors were to
remain one year, and the proconsuls two, at the head of their
governments.[1152]

The generals were in the habit of burdening the people they governed
with exorbitant exactions. They extorted from them crowns of gold
(_aurum coronarium_), of considerable value, under pretence of the
triumph, and obliged the countries through which they passed to bear the
expenses of themselves and their attendants. Cæsar remedied these
abuses, by forbidding the proconsuls to demand the crown before the
triumph had been decreed,[1153] and by subjecting to the most rigorous
restrictions the contributions in kind which were to be furnished.[1154]
We may judge how necessary these regulations were from the fact that
Cicero, whose government was justly considered an honest one, admits
that he drew large sums from his province of Cilicia eight years after
the passing of the law Julia.[1155]

The same law forbad all governors to leave their provinces, or to send
their troops out of them to interfere in the affairs of any neighbouring
State, without permission of the Senate and the people,[1156] or to
extort any money from the inhabitants of the provinces.[1157]

The law by similar provisions diminished the abuse of free legations
(_legationes liberæ_). This was the name given to the missions of
senators, who, travelling into the provinces on their own affairs,
obtained by an abuse the title of envoy of the Roman people, to which
they had no right, in order to be defrayed the expenses and costs of
travelling. These missions, which were for an indefinite time, were the
subject of incessant[1158] complaints. Cicero had limited them to a
year: Cæsar prescribed a still narrower limit, but its exact length is
unknown.[1159]

As a supplement to the preceding measures he brought in a law (_De
pecuniis repetundis_), the provisions of which have often been
confounded with those of the law _De provinciis ordinandis_. Cicero
boasts of its perfection[1160] and justice. It contained a great number
of sections. In a letter from Cœlius to Cicero, the 101st chapter of
the law is referred to. Its object was to meet all cases of peculation,
out of Italy as well as in Rome. Persons who had been wronged could
demand restitution before a legal tribunal of the sums unjustly
collected.[1161] Though the principal provisions of it were borrowed
from the law of Sylla on the same subject, the penalty was more severe
and the proceedings more expeditious. For instance, as the rich
contrived, by going into voluntary exile before the verdict, to elude
the punishment, it was provided that in that case their goods should be
confiscated, in part or wholly, according to the nature of the
crime.[1162] If the fortune of the defendant was not sufficient for the
repayment of the money claimed, all those who had profited by the
embezzlement were sought out and jointly condemned.[1163] Finally,
corruption was attacked in all its forms,[1164] and the law went so far
as to watch over the honesty of business transactions. One article
deserves special remark, that which forbad a public work to be accepted
as completed if it were not absolutely finished. Cæsar had doubtless in
mind the process which he had unsuccessfully instituted against Catulus
for his failure to complete the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus.

We may for the most part consider as Cæsar’s laws those which were
passed at his instigation, whether by the tribune P. Vatinius, or the
prætor Q. Fufius Calenus.[1165]

One of the laws of the former authorised the accuser in a suit, as well
as the accused, to challenge for once all the judges: down to this time
they had only been permitted to challenge a certain number.[1166] Its
object was to give to all the same guarantee which Sylla had reserved
exclusively to the senators, since for the knights and plebeians he
limited the challenge to three.[1167] Vatinius had also conferred on
five thousand colonists, established at Como (_Novum Comum_), the rights
of a Roman city. This measure[1168] flattered the pride of Pompey, whose
father, Pompeius Strabo, had rebuilt the town of Comum; and it offered
to other colonists the hope of obtaining the qualification of Roman
citizens, which Cæsar subsequently granted to them.[1169]

Another devoted partisan of the consul, the prætor Q. Fufius
Calenus,[1170] proposed a law which in judicial deliberations laid the
responsibility upon each of the three orders of which the tribunal was
composed: the senators, the knights, and the tribunes of the treasury.
Instead of pronouncing a collective judgment, they were called upon to
express their opinion separately. Dio Cassius explains the law in these
terms: “Seeing that in a process all the votes were mixed together, and
that each order took to itself the credit of the good decisions, and
threw the bad ones to the account of the others, Calenus had a law made
that the different orders should vote independently, in order to know
thus, not the opinion of individuals, since the vote was secret, but
that of each order.”[1171]

All the laws of Cæsar were styled “Julian laws;” they received the
sanction of the Senate, and were adopted without opposition,[1172] and
even Cato himself did not oppose them; but when he became prætor, and
found himself obliged to put them into execution, he was little-minded
enough to object to call them by their name.[1173]

We may be convinced by the above facts, that, during his first
consulship, Cæsar was animated by a single motive, the public interest.
His ruling thought was to remedy the evils which afflicted the country.
His acts, which several historians have impeached as subversive and
inspired by boundless ambition, we find, on an attentive examination, to
be the result of a wise policy, and the carrying out of a well-known
plan, proclaimed formerly by the Gracchi, and recently by Pompey
himself. Like the Gracchi, Cæsar desired a distribution of the public
domain, the reform of justice, the relief of the provinces, and the
extension of the rights of city; like them, he had protected the
knightly order, so that he might oppose it to the formidable resistance
of the Senate; but he, more fortunate, accomplished that which the
Gracchi had been unable to realise. Plutarch, in the life of
Crassus,[1174] pronounces a eulogium on the wisdom of his government,
although an intemperate judgment had led that writer, elsewhere, to
compare his conduct to that of a factious tribune.[1175]

Following the taste of the age, and especially as a means of popularity,
Cæsar gave splendid games, shows, and gladiatorial combats, borrowing
from Pompey and Atticus considerable sums to meet his love of display,
his profusion, and his largesses.[1176] Suetonius, ever ready to record,
without distinction, the reports, true and false, current at the time,
relates that Cæsar had taken from the treasury three thousand pounds of
gold, for which he substituted gilt metal; but his high character is
sufficient to refute this calumny. Cicero, who had not, at this time,
any reason to spare him, makes no mention of it in his letters, where
his ill-humour displays itself, nor in his speech against Vatinius, one
of Cæsar’s devoted friends. On the other hand, Pliny[1177] mentions a
similar fact which happened during Pompey’s consulate.


[Sidenote: Cæsar receives the Government of the Gauls.]

IV. Cæsar did not confine his ambition to discharging the functions of a
consul and legislator: he desired to obtain a command worthy of the
elevation of his genius, to extend the frontiers of the Republic, and to
preserve them from the invasion of their most powerful enemies. It will
be remembered that at the time of the election of the consuls, the
Senate had conferred upon them the superintendence of the woods and
public roads. He had, therefore, slender grounds to expect a return of
friendly feeling on the part of that assembly, and, if the distribution
of governments was vested in them, history offered examples of provinces
given by vote of the people. Numidia was assigned to Marius on the
proposal of the tribune L. Manlius; and L. Lucullus, having received
Cisalpine Gaul from the Senate, obtained Cilicia from the people.[1178]
It was thus that the command of Asia had been conferred upon Pompey.
Strong in these precedents, Vatinius proposed to the people to confer
upon Cæsar, for five years, the command of Cisalpine Gaul and Illyria,
with three legions.[1179] Pompey supported this proposal with all his
influence. The friends of Crassus,[1180] Claudius[1181] and L. Piso,
gave their votes in favour of this law.

At first, it appeared strange that the proposal of the tribune only
included Cisalpine Gaul, without reference to the other side of the
Alps, which alone offered chances of acquiring glory. But, on
reflection, we discover how skilful and politic was this manner of
putting the question. To solicit at the same time the government of both
the Gauls might have seemed exorbitant, and likely to expose him to
failure. To demand the government of Gaul proper was dangerous, for if
he had obtained it without Cisalpine Gaul, which would have devolved
upon another proconsul, Cæsar would have found himself completely
separated from Italy, inasmuch as it would have been impossible for him
to repair thither during the winter, and so preserve continuous
relations with Rome. The proposal of Vatinius, on the contrary, having
for its object only Cisalpine Gaul and Illyria, they could scarcely
refuse a command limited to the ordinary bounds, and Cæsar acquired
thereby a solid basis for operations in the midst of devoted
populations, where his legions could be easily recruited. As to the
province beyond the Alps, it was probable that some fortuitous
circumstance, or new proposal, would place it under his orders. This
happened sooner than he expected, for the Senate, by a skilful, but at
this time unusual, determination, added to his command a third province,
Gallia Comata, or Transalpine, and a fourth legion. The Senate thus
obtained for itself the credit of an initiative, which the people would
have taken of itself had it not been anticipated.[1182]

Transported with joy at this news, Cæsar, according to Suetonius,
exclaimed in the full Senate, that now, having succeeded to the utmost
of his desire in spite of his enemies, he would march over their
heads.[1183] This story is not probable. He was too prudent to provoke
his enemies in their face at the moment he was going to a distance from
Rome. “Always master of himself,” says an old writer, “he never
needlessly ran against anybody.”[1184]


[Sidenote: Opposition of the Patricians.]

V. Whilst, contending with the most serious difficulties, Cæsar
endeavoured to establish the Republic on the securest foundations, the
aristocratic party consoled itself for its successive defeats by a petty
war of sarcasm and chicanery. At the theatre they applauded all the
injurious allusions of Pompey, and received Cæsar with coldness.[1185]
Bibulus, the son-in-law of Cato, published libels containing the
grossest attacks. He renewed the accusation of plotting against the
Republic, and of the pretended shameful relations with Nicomedes.[1186]
People rushed to read and copy these insulting placards. Cicero gladly
sent them to Atticus.[1187] The party, too, to which Bibulus belonged,
extolled him to the skies, and made him a great man.[1188] His
opposition, however, had only succeeded in postponing the consular
comitia until the month of October. This prorogation was made in the
hope of preventing the election of consuls friendly to the triumvirs.
Cæsar, on this occasion, attacked him in a violent speech, and Vatinius
proposed to arrest him. Pompey, on his part, moved by invectives to
which he was unaccustomed, complained to the people of the animosity of
which he was the object; but his speech does not appear to have been
attended with much success.

It is sad to see the accomplishment of great things often thwarted by
the little passions of short-sighted men, who only know the world in the
small circle to which their life is confined. By seconding Cæsar,
Bibulus might have obtained an honourable reputation. He preferred being
the hero of a coterie, and sought to obtain the interested applause of a
few selfish senators, rather than, with his colleague, to merit public
gratitude. Cicero, on his part, mistook for a true expression of opinion
the clamours of a desperate faction. He was, moreover, one of those who
find that all fares well while they are themselves in power, and that
everything is endangered when they are out. In his letters to Atticus he
speaks of the general hatred to these new kings, predicts their
approaching fall, and exclaims,[1189] “What murmurs! what irritation!
what hatred against our friend Pompey! His name of _great_ is growing
old like that of _rich_ Crassus.”[1190]

He explains, with a perfect naïveté, the consolation which his self-love
finds in the abasement of him who was formerly the object of his
admiration. “I was tormented with fear that the services which Pompey
rendered to our country should hereafter appear greater than mine. I
have quite recovered from it. He is so low, so very low, that Curius
himself appears to me a giant beside him.”[1191] And he adds, “Now there
is nothing more popular than to hate the popular men; they have no one
on their side. They know it, and it is this which makes me fear a resort
to violence. I cannot think without shuddering of the explosions which
are inevitable.”[1192] The hatred which he bore to Clodius and Valerius
misled his judgment.

Whilst Cæsar laboriously pursued the course of his destiny, the genius
of Cicero, instead of understanding the future and hastening progress by
his co-operation, resisted the general impulse, denied its evidence, and
could not perceive the greatness of the cause through the faults of
certain adherents to power.

Cæsar bore uneasily the attacks of Cicero; but, like all who are guided
by great political views, superior to resentment, he conciliated
everything which might exercise an ascendency over people’s minds; and
the eloquence of Cicero was a power. Dio Cassius thus explains the
conduct of Cæsar: “He did not wound Cicero either by his words or his
acts. He said that often many men designedly throw vain sarcasm against
those who are above them in order to drive them to dispute, in the hope
of appearing to have some resemblance to them, and be put in the same
rank if they succeed in being abused in return. Cæsar therefore judged
that he ought not to enter the lists with anybody. Such was his rule of
conduct towards those who insulted him, and, as he saw very well that
Cicero sought less to offend him than to provoke him to make some
injurious reply, from the desire which he had to be looked upon as his
equal, he took no notice of him, made no account of what he said, and
even allowed Cicero to insult him as he liked, and to praise himself
beyond measure. However, he was far from despising him, but, naturally
gentle, his anger was not easily aroused. He had much to punish, as must
be the case with one mixed up with great affairs, but he never yielded
to passion.”[1193]

An incident occurred which showed all the animosity of a certain party.
L. Vettius, an old spy of Cicero’s in the Catiline conspiracy, punished
for having falsely accused Cæsar, was arrested on suspicion of wishing
to attempt his life, as well as that of Pompey. A poniard was found upon
him; and, being interrogated before the Senate, he denounced, as the
instigators of his crime, the young Curio, Cæpio, Brutus, Lentulus,
Cato, Lucullus, Piso, son-in-law of Cicero, Cicero himself, M.
Laterensis, and others. He also named Bibulus, which removed all air of
probability from his accusations, Bibulus having already warned Pompey
to be on his guard.[1194] Historians, such as Dio Cassius, Appian, and
Plutarch, treat this plot seriously; the first maintains expressly that
Cicero and Lucullus had armed the hand of the assassin. Suetonius, on
the contrary, reproaches Cæsar with having suborned Vettius in order to
throw the blame upon his adversaries.

In face of these contradictory informations, it is best, as in the case
of an ordinary lawsuit, to estimate the worth of the charge according to
the previous character of the accused. Now, Cicero, notwithstanding his
instability, was too honest to have a hand in a plot for assassination,
and Cæsar had too elevated a character and too great a consciousness of
his power to lower himself so far as to seek, in a miserable intrigue,
the means of augmenting his influence. A _senatus-consultum_ caused
Vettius to be thrown into prison; but Cæsar, interested in, and resolved
on, the discovery of the truth, referred the matter to the people, and
forced Vettius to mount the tribune of the orators. He, with a
suspicious versatility, denounced those whom he had before acquitted,
and cleared those whom he had denounced, and among others, Brutus. With
regard to the latter, it was pretended that this change was due to
Cæsar’s connection with his mother. Vettius was remanded to prison, and
found dead next day. Cicero accused Vatinius of killing him;[1195] but,
according to others, the true authors of his death were those who had
urged him into this disgraceful intrigue, and were in fear of his
revelations.[1196]

The comparison of these various accounts leads us to conclude that this
obscure agent of dark intrigues had made himself the instigator of a
plot, in order to have the merit of revealing it, and to attract the
favour of Cæsar by pointing to his political adversaries as accomplices.
Nevertheless, the event turned to the profit of Cæsar, and the people
permitted him to take measures for his personal safety.[1197] It was
doubtless at this period that the ancient custom was re-established of
allowing a consul, during the month when he had not the fasces, the
right of being preceded by a beadle (_accensus_) and followed by
lictors.[1198]

Without changing the fundamental laws of the Republic, Cæsar had
obtained a great result: he had replaced anarchy by an energetic power,
ruling at the same time the Senate and the comitia; by the mutual
understanding between the three most important men, he had substituted
for personal rivalries a moral authority which enabled him to establish
laws conducive to the prosperity of the empire. But it was essential
that his departure should not entail the fall of the edifice so
laboriously raised. He was not ignorant of the number and power of his
enemies; he knew that if he abandoned to them the forum and the curia,
not only would they reverse his enactments, but they would even deprive
him of his command. If there was any doubt of the degree of hatred of
which he was the object, it would be sufficient to be reminded, that a
year afterwards Ariovistus confessed to him, in an interview on the
banks of the Rhine, that many of the important nobles of Rome had
designs against his life.[1199] Against such animosities he had the
task, no easy one, of directing the elections. The Roman constitution
caused new candidates to spring up every year for honours; and it was
indispensable to have partisans amongst the two consuls, the eight
prætors, and the ten tribunes named in the comitia. At all epochs, even
at the time when the aristocracy exercised the greatest influence, it
could not prevent its opponents from introducing themselves into the
public offices. Moreover, the three who had made common cause had reason
to fear the ambition and ingratitude of the men whom they had raised,
and who would soon seek to become their equals. There was still a last
danger, and perhaps the most serious: it was the impatience and want of
discipline of the democratic party, of which they were the chiefs.

In face of these dangers, the triumvirs agreed to cause L. Piso, the
father-in-law of Cæsar, and A. Gabinius, the devoted partisan of Pompey,
to be elected to the consulship the following year. They were, in fact,
designated consuls on the 18th of October, in spite of the efforts of
the nobles and the accusation of Cato against Gabinius.

At the end of the year 695, Cæsar and Bibulus ceased their functions.
The latter, in reporting his conduct according to custom, endeavoured to
paint in the blackest colours the state of the Republic; but Clodius
prevented him from speaking.[1200] As for Cæsar, his presentiment of the
attacks to which he was to be subjected was only too well founded; for
he had hardly quitted office, when the prætor L. Domitius Ahenobarbus,
and C. Memmius, friends of Cicero,[1201] proposed to the Senate to
prosecute him for the acts committed during his consulate, and
especially for not having paid attention to the omens. From this
proposal the Senate recoiled.[1202] Still, they brought Cæsar’s questor
to trial. He himself was cited by the tribune L. Antistius. But the
whole college refused to entertain the charge, in virtue of the law
Memmia, which forbad an accusation to be entertained against a citizen
while absent on the public service.[1203]

Cæsar found himself once more at the gates of Rome, invested with the
_imperium_, and, according to Cicero’s letters,[1204] at the head of
numerous troops, composed apparently of veteran volunteers.[1205] He
even remained there more than two months, in order to watch that his
departure should not become the signal for the overthrow of his work.


[Sidenote: Law of Clodius. Exile of Cicero.]

VI. During this time, Clodius, a restless and turbulent spirit,[1206]
proud of the support which he had lent the triumvirs, as well as of
that he had received from them, listened only to his passion, and caused
laws to be enacted, some of which, flattering the populace and even the
slaves, menaced the State with anarchy. In virtue of these laws, he
re-established political associations (_collegia_), clubs dangerous to
public tranquillity,[1207] which Sylla had dissolved, but which were
subsequently reorganised to be again suppressed in 690;[1208] he made
gratuitous distributions of wheat to the people; took from the censors
the right of excluding from the Senate anybody they wished, allowing
them only to reject those who were under condemnation;[1209] forbad the
magistrates taking omens, or observing the sky on the day of the
deliberation of the comitia;[1210] and, lastly, he inflicted severe
penalties on those who had condemned Roman citizens to death unheard.
This last enactment was evidently directed against Cicero, although his
name was not mentioned in it. In order to ensure its adoption, its
author desired the acquiescence of Cæsar, who was detained at the gates
of Rome by the military command, which forbad him to enter. Clodius then
convoked the people outside the walls, and when he asked the proconsul
his opinion, the latter replied that it was well known by his vote in
the affair of the accomplices of Catiline; that, nevertheless, he
disapproved of a law which pronounced penalties upon facts which
belonged to the past.[1211]

On this occasion the Senate went into mourning, in order to exhibit its
discontent to all eyes; but the consuls Gabinius and Piso obliged the
Senate to relinquish this ill-timed demonstration.

Cæsar, in order to defend Cicero from the danger which threatened him,
offered to take him with him to Gaul as his lieutenant.[1212] Cicero
rejected the offer, deceiving himself through his confidence in his own
influence,[1213] and reckoning, moreover, on the protection of Pompey.
It appears positive from this that Clodius exceeded Cæsar’s views, a new
proof that such instruments when employed are two-edged swords, which
even the most skilful hands find it difficult to direct. It is thus that
later, Vatinius, aspiring to become prætor, received from his old patron
this strong warning: “Vatinius has done nothing gratuitously during his
tribuneship; he who only looks for money ought to dispense with
honours.”[1214] In fact, Cæsar, whose efforts to re-establish the
popular institutions had never slackened, desired neither anarchy nor
democratic laws; and just as he had not approved of the proposal of
Manilius for the emancipation of the freedmen, so he opposed the
reorganisation of the corporations, the gratuitous distributions of
wheat, and the projects of vengeance entertained by Clodius, who,
however, continually boasted of his support.

Crassus, on his part, desiring to be useful to Cicero without
compromising himself,[1215] engaged his son to go to his aid. As for
Pompey, wavering between fear and friendship, he devised a pretext not
to receive Cicero when he came to seek his support. Deprived of this
last resource, the great orator abandoned his delusions, and after some
show of resistance voluntarily withdrew. Scarcely had he quitted Rome
when the law against him was passed without opposition, with the
concurrence of those whom Cicero had looked upon as his friends.[1216]
His goods were confiscated, his house razed, and he was exiled to a
distance of four hundred miles.

Cæsar had skilfully taken precautions that his influence should be felt
at Rome during his absence, as much as the instability of the magistracy
would permit. By the aid of his daughter Julia, whose charms and mental
accomplishments captivated her husband, Cæsar retained his influence
over Pompey. By his favours to the son of Crassus, a young man of great
merit, who was appointed his lieutenant, he assured himself of his
father. Cicero is removed, but soon Cæsar will consent to his return,
and will conciliate him again by taking into his favour his brother
Quintus. There remains the opposition of Cato. Clodius undertakes to
remove him under the pretence of an honourable mission: he is sent to
Cyprus to dethrone King Ptolemy, whose irregularities excited the hatred
of his subjects.[1217] Finally, all the men of importance who had any
chance of obtaining employment are gained to the cause of Cæsar; some
even engage themselves to him by writing.[1218] He can thus proceed to
his province; Destiny is about to open a new path; immortal glory awaits
him beyond the Alps, and this glory, reflected upon Rome, will change
the face of the world.


[Sidenote: The Explanation of Cæsar’s Conduct.]

VII. We have shown Cæsar obeying only his political convictions, whether
as the ardent promoter of all popular measures, or as the declared
partisan of Pompey; we have shown him aspiring with a noble ambition to
power and honours; but we are not ignorant that historians in general
give other motives for his conduct. They represent him, in 684, as
having already his plans defined, his schemes arranged, his instruments
all prepared. They attribute to him an absolute prescience of the
future, the faculty of directing men and things at his will, and of
rendering each one, unknowingly, the accomplice of his profound designs.
All his actions have a hidden motive, which the historian boasts of
having discovered. If Cæsar raises up again the standard of Marius,
makes himself the defender of the oppressed, and the persecutor of the
hired assassins of past tyranny, it is to acquire a concurrence
necessary to his ambition; if he contends with Cicero in favour of
legality in the trial of the accomplices of Catiline, or to maintain an
agrarian law of which he approves the political aim, or if, to repair a
great injustice of Sylla, he supports the restoration of the children of
the proscribed to their rights, it is for the purpose of compromising
the great orator with the popular party. If, on the contrary, he places
his influence at the service of Pompey; if, on the occasion of the war
against the pirates, he contributes to obtain for him an authority
considered exorbitant; if he seconds the plebiscitum which further
confers upon him the command of the army against Mithridates; if
subsequently he causes extraordinary honours to be awarded him, though
absent, it is still with the Machiavellian aim of making the greatness
of Pompey redound to his own profit. So that, if he defends liberty, it
is to ruin his adversaries; if he defends power, it is to accustom the
Romans to tyranny. Finally, if Cæsar seeks the consulate, like all the
members of the Roman nobility, it is, say they, because he already
foresees, beyond the fasces of the consul and the dust of battles, the
dictatorship and even the throne. Such an interpretation results from
the too common fault of not being able to appreciate facts in
themselves, but according to the complexion which subsequent events have
given them.

Strange inconsistency, to impute to great men at the same time mean
motives and superhuman forethought! No, it was not the miserable thought
of checking Cicero which guided Cæsar; he had not recourse to a tactic
more or less skilful: he obeyed a profound conviction, and what proves
it indisputably is, that, once elevated to power, his first acts are to
execute, as consul or dictator, what as a citizen he had supported:
witness the agrarian law and the restoration of the proscribed. No, if
he supports Pompey, it is not because he thinks that he can degrade him
after having once elevated him, but because this illustrious captain had
embraced the same cause as himself; for it would not have been given to
any one to read so far into the future as to predict the use which the
conqueror of Mithridates would make of his triumphs and veritable
popularity. In fact, when he disembarked in Italy, Rome was in anxiety:
will he disband his army?[1219] Such was from all quarters the cry of
alarm. If he returns as a master, no one is able to resist him. Contrary
to the general expectation, Pompey disbanded his troops. How then could
Cæsar foresee beforehand a moderation then so unusual?

Is it truer to say that Cæsar, having become proconsul, aspired to the
sovereign power? No; in departing for Gaul, he could no more have
thought of reigning over Rome, than could General Buonaparte, starting
for Italy in 1796, have dreamed of the Empire. Was it possible for
Cæsar to foresee that, during a sojourn of ten years in Gaul, he would
there link Fortune to him for ever, and that, at the end of this long
space of time, the public mind at Rome would still be favourable to his
projects? Could he foresee that the death of his daughter would break
the ties which attached him to Pompey? that Crassus, instead of
returning in triumph from the East, would be conquered and slain by the
Parthians? that the murder of Clodius would throw all Italy into
commotion? and, finally, that anarchy, which he had sought to stifle by
the triumvirate, would be the cause of his own elevation? Cæsar had
before his eyes great examples for his guidance; he marched in the track
of the Scipios and of Paulus Æmilius; the hatred of his enemies forced
him, like Sylla, to seize upon the dictatorship, but for a more noble
cause, and by a course of proceeding exempt from vengeance and cruelty.

Let us not continually seek little passions in great souls. The success
of superior men, and it is a consoling thought, is due rather to the
loftiness of their sentiments than to the speculations of selfishness
and cunning; this success depends much more on their skill in taking
advantage of circumstances, than on that presumption, blind enough to
believe itself capable of creating events, which are in the hands of God
alone. Certainly, Cæsar had faith in his destiny, and confidence in his
genius; but faith is an instinct, not a calculation, and genius foresees
the future without understanding its mysterious progress.


END OF VOL. I.

       *       *       *       *       *

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Montesquieu, _Grandeur et Décadence des Romains_, xviii.

[2] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 22.

[3] “Cæsar resolved to pass into Britain, the people of which had, in
nearly all wars, assisted the Gauls.” (Cæsar, _Gallic War_, IV. 20.)

[4] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 47.

[5] Appian, _Civil Wars_, I. 110, 326, edit. Schweighæuser.

[6] Cicero, _Epistolæ ad Atticum_, XIV. 10.

[7] In fact, how many disturbances, civil wars, and revolutions in
Europe since 1815! in France, Spain, Italy, Poland, Belgium, Hungary,
Greece, and Germany!

[8] _Grandeur et Décadence des Romains._

[9] Titus Livius I. 44.--Dionysius of Halicarnassus, speaking of the
portion of the rampart between the Porta Æsquilina and the Porta
Collina, says, “Rome is fortified by a fosse thirty feet deep and a
hundred or more wide in the narrowest part. Above this fosse rises a
wall supported internally by a lofty and wide terrace, so that it cannot
be shaken by battering rams, or overthrown by undermining.” (_Antiq.
Roman._, IX. 68.)

[10] “Since that time (the time of Servius Tullius) Rome has been no
farther enlarged ... and if, in face of this spectacle, any one would
form a notion of the magnitude of Rome, he would certainly fall into
error, for he would not be able to distinguish where the town ends and
where it is limited, so close the suburbs come up to the town.... The
Aventine, till the reign of Claudius, remained outside the Pomœrium,
notwithstanding its numerous inhabitants.” (Aulus Gellius, XIII.
14.--Dionysius of Halicarnassus, IV. 13.)

[11] Dionysius of Halicarnassus, IV. 49.

[12] “By this treaty, the Romans and their allies engage not to navigate
beyond the Bonum Promontorium (a cape situated to the north and opposite
Carthage, and now called by navigators the Cape of _Porto-Farino_)....
The Carthaginians undertake to respect the Ardeates, the Antiates, the
Laurentes, the Circeii, the Tarracinians, and indeed all the Latin
peoples subject to Rome.” (Polybius, III. 22.)

[13] “When Tarquinius Priscus regulated, with the foresight of a skilful
prince, the state of the citizens, he attached great importance to the
dress of children of condition; and he decreed that the sons of
patricians should wear the bulla with the robe hemmed with purple: but
even this privilege was restricted to the children of those fathers who
had exercised a curule dignity; the sons of other patricians had merely
the prætexta, and it was necessary that even their fathers should have
served the prescribed time in the cavalry.” (Macrobius, _Saturnalia_, I.
6.)

[14] “The plebeians were excluded from all offices, and put only to
agriculture, the breeding of cattle, and mercantile occupations.”
(Dionysius of Halicarnassus, II. 9.)--“Numa encouraged the
agriculturists; they were excused from service in war, and discharged
from the care of municipal affairs.” (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, II.
76.)

[15] Dionysius of Halicarnassus, II. 9.--Plutarch, _Romulus_, 13.

[16] “Agrorum partes attribuerant tenuioribus.” (Festus, under the word
_Patres_, p. 246, edit. O. Müller.)

[17] Dionysius of Halicarnassus, IV. 24.

[18] These questions have been the object of learned researches; but,
after an attentive perusal of the works of Beaufort, Niebuhr, Gœttling,
Duruy, Marquardt, Mommsen, Lange, &c., the difference of opinions is
discouraging: we have adopted those which appeared most probable.

[19] Dionysius of Halicarnassus, V. 40.--Titus Livius, II. 16.

[20] Titus Livius, II. 48.--Dionysius of Halicarnassus, IX. 15.

[21] Titus Livius, II. 64.

[22] Dionysius of Halicarnassus, X. 15.

[23] “They called a _decree of the people_ (_scitum populi_) the measure
which the order of patricians had voted, on the proposal of a patrician,
without the participation of the plebs.” (See Festus, under the words
_Scitum populi_, p. 330.)--Titus Livius, speaking of the tribunes, puts
the following words into the mouth of Appius Claudius: “Non enim
_populi_, sed _plebis_, eum magistratum esse.” (Titus Livius, II. 56.)

[24] “The plebs was composed of all the mass of the people which was
neither senator nor patrician.” (See Festus, under the words _Scitum
populi_.)

[25] “Populus autem non omnis hominum cœtus quoquo modo congregatus, sed
cœtus multitudinis juris consensu et utilitatis communione
sociatus.”--(Cicero, _De Republica_, I. 25.)

[26] “Populus curiatis eum (Numam) comitiis regem esse jusserat. Tullum
Hostilium populus regem, interrege rogante, comitiis curiatis creavit.
Servius, Tarquinio sepulto, populum de se ipse consuluit jussusque
regnare legem de imperio suo curiatam tulit.” (Cicero, _De Republica_,
II. 13-21.)

[27] “The predecessors of Servius Tullius brought all causes before
their tribunal, and pronounced judgment themselves in all disputes which
regarded the State or individuals. He separated these two things, and,
reserving to himself the cognizance of affairs which concerned the
State, abandoned to other judges the causes of individuals, with
injunctions, nevertheless, to regulate their judgments according to the
laws which he had passed.” (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, IV. 25.)

[28] “The consuls, like the ancient kings, have twelve lictors carrying
axes and twelve lictors carrying rods.” (Appian, _Syrian Wars_, 15.)

[29] “From that time Tarquinius Superbus carried, during the rest of his
life, a crown of gold, a toga of embroidered purple, and a sceptre of
ivory, and his throne was also of ivory; when he administered justice,
or walked abroad in the town, he was preceded by twelve lictors, who
carried axes surrounded with rods. (_Dionysius overlooks the twelve
other lictors who carried rods only._) After the kings had been expelled
from Rome, the annual consuls continued to use all these insignia,
except the crown and the robe with purple embroidery. These two only
were withdrawn, because they were odious and disagreeable to the people.
But even these were not entirely abolished, since they still used
ornaments of gold and dress of embroidered purple, when, after a
victory, the Senate decreed them the honours of the triumph.” (Dionysius
of Halicarnassus, III. 62.)

[30] “The soldiers of Romulus, to the number of three thousand, were
divided into three bodies, called ‘tribes.’” (Dio Cassius, _Fragm._,
XIV., edit. Gros.--Dionysius of Halicarnassus, II. 7.--Plutarch,
_Romulus_, 25.)--“The name of tribune of the soldiers is derived from
the circumstance that the three tribes of the Ramnes, the Luceres, and
the Tatiens each sent three to the army.” (Varro, _De Lingua Latina_, V.
§ 81, p. 32, edit. O. Müller.)

[31] Dionysius of Halicarnassus, II. 35. Attempts have been made to
explain in different ways the origin of the word _curia_. Some have
derived it from the word _curare_, or from the name of the town of
_Cures_, or from κὑριος, “a lord:” it seems more natural to trace it to
_quiris_ (_curis_), which had the signification of a lance (Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, II. 48.--Plutarch, _Romulus_, for thus we obtain a term
analogous with that of the Middle Ages, where _spear_ signified a
_man-at-arms_, accompanied by six or eight armed followers. And as the
principal aim of the formation of the curia was to furnish a certain
number of armed citizens, it is possible that they may have given to the
whole the name of a part. We read in Ovid, _Fasti_, II. lines 477-480:--

    “Sive quod hasta curis priscis est dicta Sabinis,
       Bellicus a telo venit in astra deus:
     Sive suo regi nomen posuere Quirites,
       Seu quis Romanis junxerat ille Cures.”



[32] Titus Livius, 1. 43.

[33] Dionysius of Halicarnassus, II. 14, and IV. 20.

[34] “The appeal to the people existed even under the kings, as the
books of the pontiffs show.” (Cicero, _De Republica_, II. 31.)

[35] Plutarch, _Numa_, 17.--Pliny, _Natural History_, XXXIV. 1.

[36] “Servius Tullius conformed no longer as aforetime to the ancient
order of three tribes, distinguished by _origin_, but to the four new
tribes which he had established by _quarters_.” (Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, IV. 14.)

[37] Dionysius of Halicarnassus, III. 61.--Titus Livius, I. 35.

[38] Dionysius of Halicarnassus, IV. 22.

[39] Dionysius of Halicarnassus, IV. 19. “Servius Tullius, by these
means, threw back upon the richest all the costs and dangers of war.”
(Dionysius of Halicarnassus, IV. 20.)

[40] “If Numa was the legislator of the religious institutions,
posterity proclaims Servius as the founder of the order which
distinguishes in the Republic the difference of rank, dignity, and
fortune. It was he who established the _census_, the most salutary of
all institutions for a people destined to so much greatness. Fortunes,
and not individuals, were called upon to support the burdens of the
State. The _census_ established the classes, the centuries, and that
order which constitutes the ornament of Rome during peace and its
strength daring war.” (Titus Livius, I. 42.)

[41] Dionysius of Halicarnassus, IV. 16.

[42] “When Servius Tullius had completed the taking of the census, he
ordered all the citizens to assemble in arms in the greatest of the
fields situated near the town, and, having arranged the horsemen in
squadrons, the footmen in phalanx, and the light-armed men in respective
orders, he submitted them to a lustration, by the immolation of a bull,
a ram, and a he-goat. He ordered that the victims should be led thrice
round about the army, after which he sacrificed to Mars, to whom this
field was dedicated. From that epoch to the present time the Romans have
continued to have the same ceremony performed, by the most holy of
magistracies, at the completion of each census; it is what they call a
_lustrum_. The total number of all the Romans enumerated, according to
the writing of the tables of the census, gave 300 men less than 85,000.”
(Dionysius of Halicarnassus, IV. 22.)

[43] “This good order of government (under Servius Tullius) was
sustained among the Romans during several centuries, but in our days it
has been changed, and, by force of circumstances, has given place to a
more democratic system. It is not that the centuries have been
abolished, but the voters were no longer called together with the
ancient regularity, and their judgments have no longer the same equity,
as I have observed in my frequent attendance at the comitia.” (Dionysius
of Halicarnassus, IV. 21.)

[44] “The poorest citizens, in spite of their great number, were the
last to give their vote, and made but one century.” (Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, IV. 21.)

[45] Titus Livius, I. 43.

[46] “From the age of seventeen years, they were called to be soldiers.
Youth began with that age, and continued to the age of forty-six. At
that date old age began.” (Aulus Gellius, X. 28.--Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, IV. 16.)

[47] Titus Livius speaks only of a hundred and ninety-two centuries;
Dionysius of Halicarnassus reckons a hundred and ninety-three. “In the
Roman plebs, the poorest citizens, those who reported to the census not
more than fifteen hundred _ases_, were called _proletarii_; those who
were not worth more than three hundred and seventy-five _ases_, and who
thus possessed hardly anything, were called _capite censi_. Now, the
fortune and patrimony of the citizen being for the State a sort of
guarantee, the pledge and foundation of his love for his country, the
men of the two last classes were only enrolled in case of extreme
danger. Yet the position of the _proletarii_ was a little more
honourable than that of the _capite censi_; in times of difficulty, when
there was want of young men, they were incorporated in the
hastily-formed militia, and equipped at the cost of the State; their
name contained no allusion to the mere poll-tax to which they were
subjected; less humiliating, it reminded one only of their destination
to give children to their country. The scantiness of their patrimony
preventing them from contributing to the aid of the State, they at least
contributed to the population of the city.” (Aulus Gellius, XVI. 10.)

[48] “Tarquinius Priscus afterwards gave to the knights the organisation
which they have preserved to the present time.” (Cicero, _De Republica_,
II. 20.)

[49] “It is said that the number of citizens inscribed under this title
was 80,000. Fabius Pictor, the most ancient of our historians, adds that
this number only includes the citizens in condition to bear arms.”
(Titus Livius, I. 44.)

[50] The different censuses of the people furnished by the ancient
historians have been explained in different manners. Did the numbers
given designate all the citizens, or only the heads of families, or
those who had attained the age of puberty? In my opinion, these numbers
in Livy, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and Plutarch, applied to all the
men in a condition to carry arms, that is, according to the organisation
of Servius Tullius, to those from seventeen to sixty years old. This
category formed, in fact, the true Roman citizens. Under seventeen, they
were too young to count in the State; above sixty, they were too old.

We know that the aged sexagenarians were called _depontani_, because
they were forbidden the bridges over which they must go to the place of
voting. (Festus, under the word _sexagenarius_, p. 834.--Cicero, _Pro S.
Roscio Amerino_, 35.)

80,000 men in condition to carry arms represent, according to the
statistics of the present time, fifty-five hundredths of the male part
of the population, say 145,000 men, and for the two sexes, supposing
them equal in number, 290,000 souls. In fact, in France, in a hundred
inhabitants, there are 35 who have not passed the age of seventeen, 55
aged from seventeen to sixty years, and 10 of more than sixty.

In support of the above calculation, Dionysius of Halicarnassus relates
that in the year 247 of Rome a subscription was made in honour of
Horatius Cocles: 300,000 persons, men and women, gave the value of what
each might expend in one day for his food. (V. 25.)

As to the number of slaves, we find in another passage of Dionysius of
Halicarnassus (IX. 25) that the women, children, slaves, merchants, and
artisans amounted to a number triple of that of the citizens.

If, then, the number of citizens in condition to carry arms was 80,000,
and the rest of the population equalled three times that number, we
should have for the total 4 x 80,000 = 320,000 souls. And, subtracting
from this number the 290,000 obtained above, there would remain 30,000
for the slaves and artisans.

Whatever proportion we admit between these two last classes, the result
will be that the slaves were at that period not numerous.

[51] Dionysius of Halicarnassus, IV. 9, 23.

[52] “Within the town, the buildings were not allowed to approach the
ramparts, which they now ordinarily touch, and outside a space extended
which it was forbidden to cultivate. To all this space, which it was not
permitted to inhabit or cultivate, the Romans gave the name of
_Pomœrium_. When, in consequence of the increase of the town, the
rampart was carried farther out, this consecrated zone on each side was
still preserved.” (Titus Livius, I. 44.)

[53] “Founded on the testimony of the sacred books which are preserved
with great care in the temples.” (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, XI. 62.)

[54] “These precious pledges, which they regard as so many images of the
gods.” (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, VI. 45.)

[55] “Hence is explained the origin of the name given to the Capitol: in
digging the foundation of the temple, they found a human head; and the
augurs declared that Rome would become the head of all Italy.”
(Dionysius of Halicarnassus, IV. 61.)

[56] “This recourse to the opinions of the priests and the observations
of religious worship made the people forget their habits of violence and
their taste for arms. Their minds, incessantly occupied with religious
ideas, acknowledged the intervention of Providence in human affairs, and
all hearts were penetrated with a piety so lively that good faith and
fidelity to an oath reigned in Rome more than fear of laws or
punishments.” (Titus Livius, I. 21.)

[57] Titus Livius, I. 45.

[58] “Assemblies of people, levies of troops--indeed, the most important
operations--were abandoned, if the birds did not approve them.” (Titus
Livius, I. 36.)

[59] “Numa established also the auspicious and inauspicious days, for
with the people an adjournment might sometimes be useful.” (Titus
Livius, I. 19.)

[60] “We have a town, founded on the faith of auspices and auguries; not
a spot within these walls which is not full of gods and their
worshippers; our solemn sacrifices have their days fixed as well as the
place where they are to be made.” (Titus Livius, V. 52, _Speech of
Camillus_, VI. &c.)

[61] Cicero, _De Republica_, II. 14.

[62] “All religious acts, public and private, were submitted to the
decision of the pontiff; thus the people knew to whom to address
themselves, and disorders were prevented which might have brought into
religion the neglect of the national rites or the introduction of
foreign ones. It was the same pontiff’s duty also to regulate what
concerned funerals, and the means of appeasing the Manes, and to
distinguish, among prodigies announced by thunder and other phenomena,
those which required an expiation.” (Titus Livius, I. 20.)

[63] “The grand pontiff exercises the functions of interpreter and
diviner, or rather of hierophant. He not only presides at the public
sacrifices, but he also inspects those which are made in private, and
takes care that the ordinances of religious worship are not
transgressed. Lastly, it is he who teaches what each individual ought to
do to honour the gods and to appease them.” (Plutarch, _Numa_, 12.)

[64] “Numa divided the year into twelve months, according to the moon’s
courses; he added January and February to the year.” (Titus Livius, I.
19.--Plutarch, _Numa_, 18.)

[65] Dionysius of Halicarnassus, II. 73.

[66] Dionysius of Halicarnassus, II. 64.

[67] Salian is derived from _salire_ (to leap, to dance). (Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, II. 70.)--It was their duty, on certain occasions, to
execute sacred dances, and to chant hymns in honour of the god of war.

[68] Dionysius of Halicarnassus, II. 72.--“The name of _feciales_ is
derived from the circumstance that they presided over the public faith
between peoples; for it was by their intervention that war when
undertaken assumed the character of a just war, and, that once
terminated, peace was guaranteed by a treaty. Before war was undertaken,
some of the _feciales_ were sent to make whatever demands had to be
made.” (Varro, _De Lingua Latina_, V. § 86.)--“If allies complained that
the Romans had done them wrong, and demanded reparation for it, it was
the business of the _feciales_ to examine if there were any violation of
treaty.” (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, II. 72.)--Those _fecial_ priests
had been instituted by Numa, the mildest and most just of kings, to be
guardians of peace, and the judges and arbiters of the legitimate
motives for undertaking war. (Plutarch, _Camillus_, 20.)

[69] Dionysius of Halicarnassus, IV. 14.--Pliny, _Natural History_, XXI.
8.

[70] Numa raised a temple to Romulus, whom he deified under the name of
_Quirinus_. (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, II. 63)

[71] “Temple of Vesta, emblem of chastity; temple to Public Faith;
raised by Numa.” (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, II. 65 and 75.)

[72] “The god Terminus; the festival in honour of Pales, the goddess of
shepherds; Saturn, the god of agriculture; the god of fallow-grounds,
pasture,” &c. (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, II. 74.)

[73] “After having done these things in peace and war, Servius Tullius
erected two temples to Fortune, who appeared to have been favourable to
him all his life, one in the oxen-market, the other on the banks of the
Tiber, and he gave her the surname of _Virilis_, which she has preserved
to the present day among the Romans.” (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, IV.
27.)

[74] “The Temple of Janus had been closed twice since the reign of Numa:
the first time by the consul Titus Manlius, at the end of the first
Punic war; the second, when the gods granted to our age to see, after
the battle of Actium, Cæsar Augustus Imperator give peace to the
universe.” (Titus Livius, I. 19.)--And Plutarch says, in his _Life of
Numa_, XX., “Nevertheless, this temple was closed after the victory of
Cæsar Augustus over Antony, and it had previously been closed under the
consulate of Marcus Atilius and of Titus Manlius, for a short time, it
is true; it was almost immediately opened again, for a new war broke
out. But, during the reign of Numa, it was not seen open a single day.”

[75] We employ intentionally the word _republic_, because all the
ancient authors give this name to the State, under the kings as well as
under the emperors. It is only by translating faithfully these
denominations that we can form an exact idea of ancient societies.

[76] “We acknowledge how many good and useful institutions the Republic
owed to each of our kings.” (Cicero, _De Republica_, II. 21.)

[77] “Among the Romans, the children possess nothing of their own during
their father’s life. He can dispose not only of all the goods, but even
of the lives of his children.” (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, VIII. 79;
II. 25.)

[78] Dionysius of Halicarnassus, II., 25, 26.--“From the beginning,”
says Mommsen, “the Roman family presented, in the moral order which
reigned among its members, and their mutual subordination, the
conditions of a superior civilisation.” (_Roman History_, 2nd edit., I.,
p. 54.)

[79] “Morals were so pure that, during two hundred and thirty years, no
husband was known to repudiate his wife, nor any woman to separate from
her husband.” (Plutarch, _Parallel of Theseus and Romulus_.)

[80] Cicero admires the profound wisdom of the first kings in admitting
the conquered enemies to the number of the citizens. “Their example,” he
says, “has become an authority, and our ancestors have never ceased
granting the rights of citizens to conquered enemies.” (_Oration for
Balbus_, xxxi.)

[81] ROMAN COLONIES (COLONIÆ CIVIUM CUM JURE SUFFRAGII ET
HONORUM).--First period: 1-244 (under the kings).

  _Cænina_ (Sabine). Unknown.
  _Antemnæ_ (Sabine). Unknown.
  _Cameria_ (Sabine). Destroyed in 252. Unknown.
  _Medullia_ (Sabine). _Sant’-Angelo_.--See Gell., _Topogr. of Rome_, 100.
  _Crustumeria_ (Sabine). Unknown.
  _Fidenæ_ (Sabine). Ruins near _Giubileo_ and _Serpentina_. Re-colonised in
    326. Destroyed, according to an hypothesis of M. Madvig.
  _Collatia._
  _Ostia_ (the mouth of the Tiber). Ruins between _Torre Bovacciano_
    and _Ostia_.

LATIN COLONIES (COLONIÆ LATINÆ).--First period: 1-244 (under the kings).

We cannot mention with certainty any Latin colony founded at this epoch,
from ancient authorities. The colonies of _Signia_ and _Circeii_ were
both re-colonized in the following period, and we shall place them
there.

[82] “Tarquin embellished also the great circus between the Aventine and
Palatine hills; he was the first who caused the _covered seats_ to be
made round this circus.” (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, III. 68.)

[83] Titus Livius, I. 44.--“Immediately the centurions, whose centuries
had taken flight, and the _antesignani_ who had lost their standard,
were condemned to death: some had their heads cut off; others were
beaten to death. As to the rest of the troops, the consul caused them to
be decimated; in every ten soldiers, he upon whom the lot fell was
conducted to the place of execution, and suffered for the others. It is
the usual punishment among the Romans for those who have quitted their
ranks or abandoned their standards.” (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, IX.
1.)

[84] “Romulus placed upon their hair a crown of laurels.” (Plutarch,
_Romulus_, XX.)

[85] “The Senate and the people decreed to King Tarquin the honours of
the triumph.” (_Combat of the Romans and Etruscans_, Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, III. 60.)--“An ovation differs from a triumph, first,
because he who receives the honours of it enters on foot at the head of
the army, and not mounted in a car; secondly, that he has neither the
crown of gold, nor the toga embroidered with gold and of different
colours, but he carries only a white _trabea_ bordered with purple, the
ordinary costume of the generals and consuls. Besides having only a
crown of laurel, he does not carry a sceptre. This is what the little
triumph has less than the great; in all other respects there is no
difference.” (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, V. 47.)

[86] Romulus kills Acron, routs the enemies, and returns to _offer to
Jupiter Feretrius the opima spolia taken from that prince_.

“After Romulus, Cornelius Cossus was the first who consecrated to the
same gods similar spoils, having slain with his own hand, in a combat
where he commanded the cavalry, the general of the Fidenates.

“We must not separate the example of M. Marcellus from the two
preceding. He had the courage and intrepidity to attack on the banks of
the Pô, at the head of a handful of horsemen, the king of the Gauls,
though protected by a numerous army; he struck off his head, and
_carried off his armour_, of which he made an offering to Jupiter
Feretrius. (Year of Rome 531.)

“The same kind of bravery and combat signalised T. Manilius Torquatus,
Valerius Corvus, and Scipio Æmilianus. These warriors, challenged by the
chieftains of the enemies, made them bite the dust; but, as they had
fought under the auspices of a superior chief, they did not offer their
spoils to Jupiter.” (Year of Rome 392, 404, 602.) (Valerius Maximus,
III. 2, §§ 3, 4, 5, 6.)

[87] “Tarquin divided the seats (of the great circus) among the thirty
curiæ, assigning to each the place which belonged to him.” (Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, III. 68.)--“It was then (after the war against the
Latins) that the site was chosen which is now called the great circus.
They marked out in it the particular places for the senators and for the
knights.” (Titus Livius, I. 35.)

[88] “The hundred senators were divided into ten decaries, and each
chose one of its members to exercise this authority. The power was
collective: one alone carried the insignia of it, and walked preceded by
the lictors. The duration of this power was for five days, and each
exercised it in turn ... The plebs was not long before it began to
murmur. Its servitude had only been aggravated; instead of one master,
it had a hundred. It appeared disposed to suffer only one king, and to
choose him itself.” (Titus Livius, I. 17.)

[89] “For the rest, this liberty consisted at first rather in the annual
election of the consuls than in the weakening of the royal power. The
first consuls assumed all its prerogatives and all its insignia; only it
was feared that, if both possessed the fasciæ, this solemnity might
inspire too much terror, and Brutus owed to the deference of his
colleague the circumstance of possessing them first.” (Titus Livius, II.
1.)

[90] “The death of Melius was justified,” said Quinctius, “to appease
the people, although he might be innocent of the crime of aspiring to
the kingly power.” (Titus Livius, IV. 15.)

[91] “From these inflexible hearts came a sentence of death, which was
odious to the judges themselves.” (Titus Livius, VI. 20.)

[92] _Discourse on Titus Livius_, I. 5.

[93] Proofs of the disagreement of the two consuls: “Cassius brought
secretly as many Latins and Hernici as he possibly could to have their
suffrages; there arrived in Rome such a great number, that in a short
time the town was full of strangers. Virginius, who was informed of it,
caused a herald to proclaim in all the public places that all those who
had no domicile in Rome should withdraw immediately; but Cassius gave
orders contrary to those of his colleague, forbidding any one who had
the right of Roman freedom to quit the town until the law was confirmed
and received.” (Year of Rome 268.) (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, VIII.
72.)--“Quinctius, more indulgent than his colleague, willed the
concession to the people of all their just and reasonable demands;
Appius, on the contrary, was willing to die rather than to yield.” (Year
of Rome 283.) (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, IX. 48.)

[94] “The two consuls were of the most opposite tempers, and were always
in discord (_dissimiles discordesque_).” (Titus Livius, XXII.
41.)--“While they lost their time in quarrels rather than in
deliberations.” (Titus Livius, XXII. 45.)

[95] Titus Livius, XXI. 52.--Dio Cassius, _Fragments_, CCLXXI. edit.
Gros.

[96] Titus Livius, XXI. 52.

[97] “In the Roman army the two consuls enjoyed an equal power; but the
deference of Agrippa in concentrating the authority in the hands of his
colleague, established the unity so necessary for the success of great
enterprises.” (Titus Livius, III. 70.)--“The two consuls commanded often
both in the day of battle.” (Titus Livius, _Battle of Mount Vesuvius_,
VIII. 9; _Battle of Sentinum_, X. 27.)--“A fatal innovation; from that
time each had in view his personal interest, and not the general
interest, preferring to see the Republic experience a check than his
colleague covered with glory, and evils without number afflicted the
fatherland.” (Dio Cassius, _Fragments_, LI. edit. Gros.)

[98] “They called tribunes of the people those who, from tribunes of the
soldiers, which they were first, were charged with the defence of the
people during its retreat at Crustumerium.” (Varro, _De Lingua Latina_,
V. 81, edition of O. Müller.)

[99] “The discontented obtained from the patricians the confirmation of
their magistrates; afterwards they demanded of the Senate the permission
to elect annually two plebeians (_ediles_) to second the tribunes in all
things in which they might have need of aid, to judge the causes which
these might entrust into their hands, to have care of the sacred and
public edifices, and to ensure the supplying of the market with
provisions.” (Year of Rome 260.) (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, VI. 90.)

[100] Dionysius of Halicarnassus, VI. 89.

[101] The tribunes oppose the enrolment of troops. (Year of Rome 269.)
(Dionysius of Halicarnassus, VIII. 81.)--“Licinius and Sextius
re-elected tribunes of the people, allowed no curule magistrate to be
elected; and, as the people continued to re-appoint the two tribunes,
who always threw out the elections of the military tribunes, the town
remained five years deprived of magistrates.” (Year of Rome 378.) (Titus
Livius, VI. 35.)--“Each time the consuls convoked the people to confer
the consulship on the candidates, the tribunes, in virtue of their
powers, prevented the holding of the assemblies. So also, when these
assembled the people to make the election, the consuls opposed it,
pretending that the right of convoking the people and collecting the
suffrages belonged to them alone.” (Year of Rome 271.) (Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, VIII. 90.)--“Sometimes the tribunes prevented the
patricians from assembling for the election of the interrex, sometimes
they forbade the interrex himself making the senatus consultus for the
consular comitia.” (Year of Rome 333.) (Titus Livius, IV. 43.)

[102] Titus Livius, III. 30.

[103] Dionysius of Halicarnassus, X. 31.

[104] “The most remarkable event of this year (the year of Rome 282), in
which military successes were so nearly balanced, and in which discord
broke out in the camp and in the town with so much fury, was the
establishment of the comitia by _tribes_, an innovation which gave to
the plebeians the honour of the victory, but little real advantage. In
fact, the exclusion of the patricians deprived the comitia of all their
pomp, without augmenting the power of the people or diminishing that of
the Senate.” (Titus Livius, II. 60.)

[105] Assembly of the people both of the town and country; the suffrages
were given in it, not by centuries, but by tribes:--“The day of the
third market, from an early hour in the morning, the public place was
occupied by so great a crowd of country people as had never been seen
before. The tribunes assembled the people by tribes, and, dividing the
Forum by ropes stretched across, formed as many distinct spaces as there
were tribes. Then, for the first time, the Roman people gave its
suffrages by tribes, in spite of the opposition of the patricians, who
tried to prevent it, and demanded that they should assemble by
centuries, according to the ancient custom.” (Year of Rome 263.)
(Dionysius of Halicarnassus, VII. 59.)--“From that period (the year 283,
consulate of Appius) to our days, the comitia by tribes have elected the
tribunes and ediles, without auspices or observation of other auguries.
Thus ended the troubles which agitated Rome.” (Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, IX. 49.)--“The Roman people, more irritated than ever,
demanded that for each tribe a third urn should be added for the town of
Rome, in order to put the suffrages in it.” (Year of Rome 308.)
(Dionysius of Halicarnassus, XI. 52.)

[106] “Duas civitates ex una factas: suos cuique parti magistratus, suas
leges esse.” (Titus Livius, II. 44.)--“In fact, we are, as you see
yourselves, divided into two towns, one of which is governed by poverty
and necessity, and the other by abundance of all things and by pride and
insolence.” (Year of Rome 260). (_Speech of Titus Larcius to the envoys
of the Volsci_, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, VI. 36,)

[107] The clients began to vote in the comitia by tribes after the law
Valeria Horatia; we see, by the account of Titus Livius (V. 30, 32),
that in the time of Camillus the clients and the patricians had already
entered the comitia by tribes.

[108] Appian, _Civil Wars_, I. 1.

[109] Titus Livius, III. 9.

[110] Lectorius, the most aged of the tribunes of the people, spoke of
laws which had not been long made. “By the first, which concerned the
translation of judgments, the Senate granted to the people the power of
judging any one of the patricians.” (Year of Rome 283.) (Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, IX. 46.)

[111] “The laws voted by the people in the comitia by tribes were to be
obligatory on all Romans, and have the same force as those which were
made in the comitia by centuries. The pain of death and confiscation was
even pronounced against any one who should be convicted of having in
anything abrogated or violated this regulation. This new ordinance cut
short the old quarrels between the plebeians and the patricians, who
refused to obey the laws made by the people, under the pretext that what
was decided in the assemblies by tribes was not obligatory on all the
town, but only on the plebeians; and that, on the contrary, what was
decided in the comitia by centuries became law as well for themselves as
for the other citizens.” (Year of Rome 305.) (Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, XI. 45.)--“One point always contested between the two
orders was to know if the patricians were subjected to the _plebiscita_.
The first care of the consuls was to propose to the comitia assembled by
centuries a law to the effect that the decrees of the people assembled
by tribes should be laws of the State.” (Year of Rome 305.) (Titus
Livius, III. 55.)--“The patricians pretended that they alone had the
power of giving laws.” (Titus Livius, III. 31.)

[112] “The comitia by curiæ for everything which concerns military
affairs; the comitia by centuries for the election of your consuls and
of your military tribunes, &c.” (Titus Livius, V. 52.)

[113] Aulus Gellius, XV. 27.--Festus, under the words _Scitum populi_.

[114] Titus Livius, IV. 3.

[115] “The indignation of the people was extreme, on account of the
refusal to take the auspices, as if it had been an object for the
reprobation of the immortal gods.”--“The tribune demanded for what
reason a plebeian could not be consul, and was told in reply that the
plebeians had not the auspices, and that the decemvirs had interdicted
marriage between the two orders only to hinder the auspices from being
troubled by men of equivocal birth.” (Titus Livius, IV. 6.)--“Now in
what hands are the auspices according to the custom of our ancestors? In
the hands of the patricians, I think; for the auspices are never taken
for the nomination of a plebeian magistrate.”--“Is it not then the same
thing as to annihilate the auspices in this city, to take them, in
electing plebeian consuls, from the patricians, who alone can observe
them?” (Year of Rome 386.) (Titus Livius, VI. 41.)

To the consul, the prætor, and the censor was reserved the right of
taking the great auspices; to the less elevated magistracies that of
taking the lesser ones. The great auspices appear, in fact, to have been
those of which the exercise was of most importance to the rights of the
aristocracy. The ancients have not left us a precise definition of the
two classes of auspices; but it appears to result from what Cicero says
of them (_De Legibus_, II. 12), that by the great auspices were
understood those for which the intervention of the augurs was
indispensable; the little auspices, on the contrary, were those which
were taken without them. (See Aulus Gellius, XIII. 15.)

As to the auspices taken in the comitia where the consular tribunes were
elected, passages of Titus Livius (V. 14, 52; VI. 11) prove that they
were the same as for the election of the consuls, and consequently that
they were the great auspices; for we know from Cicero (_De Divinatione_,
I. 17; II. 35--compare Titus Livius, IV. 7) that it was the duty of the
magistrate who held the comitia to bring there an augur, of whom he
demanded what the presages announced. The privileges of the nobility
were maintained by causing the comitia for the election of the consular
tribunes to be held by an interrex chosen by the aristocracy.

[116] Titus Livius, VI. 5.

[117] Titus Livius, VII. 17.

[118] In 333, the number was increased to four. Two, overseers for the
guard of the treasury and the disposition of the public money, were
appointed by the consuls; the two others, charged with the
administration of the military chest, were appointed by the tribes.

[119] “_The master of the knights_ was so called because he exercised
the supreme power over the knights and the _accensi_, as the dictator
exercised it over the whole Roman people; whence the name of _master of
the people_, which was also given to him.” (Varro, _De Lingua Latina_,
V. 82, edit. Müller.)

[120] “The duumvirs charged with the sacred rites were replaced by the
decemvirs, half plebeians, half patricians.” (Titus Livius, VI. 37.)

[121] Titus Livius, VII. 5.

[122] “Appius convokes an assembly, accuses Valerius and Horatius of the
crime of perduellio, calculating entirely on the tribunian power with
which he was invested.” (Year of Rome 305.) (Dionysius of Halicarnassus,
XI. 39.)

[123] “In the interim, there was at Rome a conspiracy of several slaves,
who formed together the design of seizing the forts and setting fire to
the different quarters of the town.” (Year of Rome 253.) (Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, V. 51.)--“From the summit of the Capitol, Herdonius
called the slaves to liberty. He had taken up the cause of misfortune;
he had just restored to their country those whom injustice had banished,
and delivered the slaves from a heavy yoke; it is to the Roman people
that he wishes to give the honour of this enterprise.” (Year of Rome
294.) (Titus Livius, III. 15.)--“The slaves who had entered into the
conspiracy were, at different points, to set fire to the town, and,
while the people were occupied in carrying assistance to the houses
which were in flames, to seize by force of arms the citadel and the
Capitol. Jupiter baffled these criminal designs. On the denunciation of
two slaves, the guilty were arrested and punished.” (Year of Rome 336.)
(Titus Livius, IV. 45.)

[124] “Finally, under the consulship of M. Minucius and A. Sempronius,
wheat arrived in abundance from Sicily, and the Senate deliberated on
the price at which it must be delivered to the citizens.” (Year of Rome
263.) (Titus Livius, II. 34.)--“As the want of cultivators gave rise to
the fear of a famine, people were sent to search for wheat in Etruria,
in the Pomptinum, at Cumæ, and even as far as Sicily.” (Year of Rome
321.) (Titus Livius, IV. 25.)

[125] “When Romulus had distributed all the people in tribes and curiæ,
he also divided the lands into thirty equal portions, of which he gave
one to each curia, reserving, nevertheless, what was necessary for the
temples and the sacrifices, _and a certain portion for the domain of the
Republic_.” (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, II. 7.)

[126] “Numa distributed to the poorest of the plebeians the lands which
Romulus had conquered and a small portion of the lands of the public
domain.” (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, II. 62.)--“ Similar measures are
attributed to Tullius Hostilius and Ancus Martius.” (Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, III. 1, 48.)--“As soon as he was mounted on the throne,
Servius Tullius distributed the lands of the public domain to the
_thetes_ (mercenaries) of the Romans.” (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, IV.
13.)

[127] Romulus, according to Dionysus of Halicarnassus, sent two colonies
to Cænina and Antemnæ, having taken from those two towns the third of
their lands. (II. 35.)--In the year 252, the Sabines lost ten thousand
acres (_jugera_) of arable land. (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, V. 49.)--A
treaty concluded with the Hernici, in 268, deprived them of two-thirds
of their territory. (Titus Livius, II. 41.)--“In 413, the Privernates
lost two-thirds of their territory; in 416, the Tiburtines and
Prenestines lost a part of their territory.” (Titus Livius, VIII. I,
14.)--“In 563, P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica took from the Boians nearly
half their territory.” (Titus Livius, XXXVI. 39.)

[128] Appian, _Civil Wars_, I. vii.--This citation, though belonging to
a posterior date, applies nevertheless to the epoch of which we are
speaking.

[129] “Servius published an edict to oblige all who had appropriated,
under the title of usufructuaries or proprietors, the lands of the
public domain, to restore them within a certain time, and, by the same
edict, the citizens who possessed no heritage were ordered to bring him
their names.” (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, IV. 10.)

[130] “We need not be astonished if the poor prefer the lands of the
domain to be distributed (to all the citizens) than to suffer that a
small number of the most shameless should remain sole possessors. But if
they see that they are taken from those who gather their revenues, and
that the public is restored to the possession of its domain, they will
cease to be jealous of us, and the desire to see them distributed to
each citizen would diminish, when it shall be demonstrated to them that
these lands will be of greater utility when possessed in common by the
Republic.” (Year of Rome 268.) (_Speech of Appius_, Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, VIII. 73.)

[131] Agannius Urbicus, _De Controversiiss agrorum_, in the _Gromatici
veteres_, ed. Lachmann, vol. I, p. 82.

[132] Titus Livius, II. 48.

[133] “Lucius Æmilius said that it was just that the common goods should
be shared among all the citizens, rather than leave the enjoyment of
them to a small number of individuals; that in regard to those who had
seized upon the public lands, they ought to be sufficiently satisfied
that they had been left to enjoy them during so long a time without
being disturbed in their possession, and that if afterwards they were
deprived of them, it ill became them to be obstinate in retaining them.
He added that, besides the public law acknowledged by general opinion,
and according to which the public goods are common to all the citizens,
just as the goods of individuals belong to those who have acquired them
legitimately, the Senate was obliged, by a special reason, to distribute
the lands to the people, since it had passed an ordinance for that
purpose already seventeen years ago.” (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, IX.
51.)

[134] Titus Livius, III. 31.--Dionysius of Halicarnassus, X. 33 _et
seq._

[135] “The plebeians complain loudly that their conquests have been
taken from them; that it is disgraceful that, having conquered so many
lands from the enemy, not the least portion of it remains to them; that
the _ager publicus_ is possessed by rich and influential men who take
the revenue unjustly, without other title than their power and
unexampled acts of violence. They demand finally that, sharing with the
patricians all the dangers, they may also have their share in the
advantages and profit derived from them.” (Year of Rome 298.) (Dionysius
of Halicarnassus, X. 36.)

[136] “The moment would have been well chosen, after having taken
vengeance on the seditious, to propose, in order to soothe people’s
minds, the partition of the territory of the Bolani; they would thus
have weakened the desire for an agrarian law which would expel the
patricians from the public estates they had unjustly usurped. For it was
an indignity which cut the people to the heart, this rage of the
nobility to retain the public lands they occupied by force, and, above
all, their refusal to distribute to the people even the vacant lands
recently taken from the enemy, which, indeed, would soon become, like
the rest, the prey of some of the nobles,” (Year of Rome 341.) (Titus
Livius, IV. 51.)

[137] Titus Livius, V. 30.

[138] Titus Livius, VI. 21.--It appears that the Pontine Marshes were
then very fertile, since Pliny relates, after Licinius Mucianus, that
they included upwards of twenty-four flourishing towns. (_Natural
History_, III. v. 56, edit. Sillig.)

[139] Titus Livius, VI. 35-42.--Appian, _Civil Wars_, I. 8.

[140] See the remarkable work of M. A. Mace, _Sur les Lois Agraires_,
Paris, 1846.

[141] ROMAN COLONIES.--Second period: 244-416

  _Lavici_ (Labicum) (336). Latium. (_Via Lavicana_.) _La Colonna._
  _Vitellia_ (359). The Volscians. (_Via Prænestina_.) Uncertain.
    _Civitella_ or _Valmontone_.
  _Satricum_ (370). The Volscians. Banks of the Astura. _Casale di Conca_,
     between _Anzo_ and _Velletri_.

LATIN COLONIES.--Second period: 244-416.

  _Antium_ (287). Volscians. _Torre d’Anzio_ or _Porto d’Anzio_.
  _Suessa Pometia_ (287). Near the Pontine Marshes. Disappeared at
    an early period.
  _Cora_. Volscians (287). _Cori_.
  _Signia_ (259). Volscians. _Segni_.
  _Velitræ_ (260). Volscians. _Velletri_.
  _Norba_ (262). Volscians. Near the modern village of _Norma_.
  _Ardea_ (312). Rutuli. _Ardea_.
  _Circeii_ (361). Aurunces. _Monte Circello_: _San Felice_
    or _Porto di Paolo_.
  _Satricum_ (369). Volscians. _Casale di Conca_.
  _Sutrium_ (371). Etruria. (_Via Cassia_.) _Sutri_.
  _Setia_ (372) Volscians. _Sezze_.
  _Nepete_ (381). Etruria. _Nepi_.



[142] It is thus that we see, in 416, each poor citizen receiving two
_jugera_, taken from the land of the Latins and their allies. In 479,
after the departure of Pyrrhus, the Senate caused lands to be
distributed to those who had fought against the King of Epirus. In 531,
the Flaminian law, which Polybius accuses wrongly of having introduced
corruption into Rome, distributed by head the Roman territory situated
between Rimini and the Picenum; in 554, after the capture of Carthage,
the Senate made a distribution of land to the soldiers of Scipio. For
each year of service in Spain or Africa, each soldier received two
_jugera_, and the distribution was made by decemvirs. (Titus Livius,
XXXI. 49.)

[143] “Marcus Valerius demonstrated to them that prudence did not permit
them to refuse a thing of small importance to citizens who, under the
government of the kings, had distinguished themselves in so many battles
for the defence of the Republic.” (Year of Rome 256.) (Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, V. 65.)--“On one hand, the plebeians pretended not to be
in a condition to pay their debts; they complained that, during so many
years of war, their lands had produced nothing, that their cattle had
perished, that their slaves had escaped or had been carried away in the
different incursions of the enemies, and that all they possessed at Rome
was expended for the cost of the war. On the other hand, the creditors
said that the losses were common to everybody; that they had suffered no
less than their debtors; that they could not consent to lose what they
had lent in time of peace to some indigent citizens in addition to what
the enemies had taken from them in time of war.” (Year of Rome 258.)
(Dionysius of Halicarnassus, VI. 22.)

[144] Those who pleaded the causes of individuals were nearly all
senators, and exacted for this service very heavy sums under the title
of fees. (Titus Livius, XXXIV. 4.)

[145] “The days following, Servius Tullius caused a report to be drawn
up of the insolvent debtors, of their creditors, and of the respective
amount of their debts. When this was prepared, he caused counters to be
established in the Forum, and, in public view, repaid the lenders
whatever was due to them.” (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, IV. 10.)

[146] “Servilius caused a herald to proclaim that all persons were
forbidden to seize, sell, or retain in pledge the goods of Romans who
served against the Volsci, or to take away their children, or any one of
their family, for any contract whatever.”--“An old man complains that
his creditor has reduced him to slavery: he declares loudly that he was
born free, that he had served in all the campaigns as long as his age
permitted, that he was in twenty-eight battles, where he had several
times gained the prize of valour; but that, since the times had become
bad, and the Republic was reduced to the last extremity, he had been
constrained to borrow money to pay the taxes. After that, he added,
having no longer wherewith to pay my debts, my merciless creditor has
reduced me to slavery with my two children, and, because I expostulated
slightly when he ordered me to do things which were too difficult,
caused me to be disgracefully beaten with several blows.” (Year of Rome
259.) (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, VI. 29.)--“The creditors contributed
to the insurrection of the populace, they cast aside all moderation, but
threw their debtors into prison, and treated them like the slaves whom
they would have bought for money.” (Year of Rome 254.) (Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, V. 53.)

[147] “The poor, especially those who were not in condition to pay their
debts, who formed the greatest number, refused to take arms, and would
hold no communication with the patricians, until the Senate should pass
a law for the abolition of debts.” (Year of Rome 256.) (Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, V. 63.)

[148] Dionysius of Halicarnassus, V. 64.

[149] Appius Claudius Sabinus expressed an opinion quite contrary to
that of Marcus Valerius: he said that “there could be no doubt that the
rich, who were not less citizens than the poor, and who held the first
rank in the Republic, occupied the public offices, and had served in all
the wars, would take it very ill if they discharged their debtors from
the obligation of paying what was due.” (Year of Rome 256.) (Dionysius
of Halicarnassus, V. 66.)

[150] It results from the testimony of Polybius, Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, Livy, Florus, and Eutropius, that at the moment of the
fall of Tarquinius Superbus, the domination of Rome extended over all
Latium, over the greater part of the country of the Sabines, and even as
far as Ocriculum (_Otricoli_) in Umbria; that Etruria, the country of
the Hernici, and the territory of Cære (_Cervetri_), were united with
the Romans by alliances which placed them, with regard to these, in a
state of subjection.

The establishment of the consular government was, for the peoples
subject to Rome, the signal of revolt. In 253, all the peoples of Latium
were leagued against Rome; with the victory of Lake Regillus, in 258,
that is, fourteen years after the overthrow of the Tarquins, the
submission of Latium began, and it was finished by the treaty concluded
by Spurius Cassius with the Latins in the year of Rome 268. The Sabines
were only finally reduced by the consul Horatius in 305. Fidenæ, which
had acknowledged the supremacy of Tarquin, was taken in the year 319,
then taken again, after an insurrection, in 328. Anxur (_Terracina_) was
only finally subjected after the defeat of the Volsci; and Veii and
Falerium only fell under the power of the Romans in the year 358 and
359. Circci, where a Latin colony had been established in the times of
the kings, only received a new one in the year 360. Cære was reunited to
the Roman territory in the year 364, and it was only at the time of the
Gallic invasion that Antium and Ecetra were finally annexed to the Roman
territory. In 408, the capture of Satricum, at the entrance of the
country of the Volscians, prevented that people from supporting an
insurrection which had already begun among the Latins. In 411, the whole
plain of Latium was occupied by Roman citizens or allies, but in the
mountains there remained Volscian and Latin cities which were
independent and secretly enemies. Nevertheless it may be said that,
towards that period, the Republic had re-conquered the territory which
it possessed under the kings, although Rome had again, in 416, to
suppress a last insurrection of the Latins.

[151] Mommsen, _Roman History_, I., p. 241, 2nd edit.

[152] In fourteen years, from 399 to 412, the patricians allowed only
six plebeians to arrive at the consulship.

[153] Titus Livius, X. 23.

[154] Titus Livius, X. 9.

[155] “Who does not see clearly that the vice of the dictator
(Marcellus) in the eyes of the augurs was that he was a plebeian?”
(Titus Livius, VIII. 23.--Cicero, _De Divinatione_, II. 35, 37; _De
Legibus_, II. 13.)

[156] The consuls and prætors could only assemble the comitia, command
the armies, or give final judgment in civil affairs, after having been
invested with the _imperium_ and with the right of taking the auspices
(_jus auspiciorum_) by a curiate law.

[157] _Second Oration on the Agrarian Law_, 9.

[158] Titus Livius, IV. 3.

[159] If a citizen refused to give his name for the recruitment, his
goods were confiscated; if he did not pay his creditors, he was sold for
a slave. Women were forbidden the use of wine. (Polybius, VI. 2.)--The
number of guests who could be admitted to feasts was limited. (Athenæus,
VI. p. 274.)--The magistrates also, on entering on office, could not
accept invitations to dinner, except from certain persons who were
named. (Aulus Gellius, II. 24.--Macrobius, II. 13.)--“Marriage with a
plebeian or a stranger was surrounded with restrictive measures; it was
forbidden with a slave or with a freedman. Celibacy, at a certain age,
was punished with a fine.” (Valerius Maximus, II. ix. 1.)--There were
regulations also for mourning and funerals. (Cicero, _De Legibus_, II.
24.)

[160] Aulus Gellius, IV. 12.

[161] Plutarch, _Cato the Censor_, 23.

[162] Historians have always assigned as the northern frontier of Italy,
under the Republic, the River Macra, in Etruria; but that the limit was
farther south is proved by the fact that Cæsar went to Lucca to take his
winter quarters; this town, therefore, must have been in his command and
made part of Cisalpine Gaul. Under Augustus, the northern frontier of
Italy extended to the Macra.

[163] Speech of Cæsar to the Senate, reported by Sallust. (_Conspiracy
of Catilina_, li.)

[164] This paragraph, expressing with great clearness the policy of the
Roman Senate, is extracted from the excellent _Hist. Romaine_ of M.
Duruy, t. I., c. xi.

[165] As, for example, to put the wife in complete obedience to her
husband; to give the father absolute authority over his children, etc.

[166] In the origin, the municipia were the allied towns preserving
their autonomy, but engaging to render to Rome certain services
(_munus_); whence the name of municipia. (_Aulus Gellius_, XVI. 13.)

[167] To be able to enjoy the right of city, it was necessary to be
domiciliated at Rome, to have left a son in his majority in the
municipium, or to have exercised there a magistracy.

[168] Aul. Gellius, XVI. xiii.--Paulus Diaconus, on the word
_Municipium_, p. 127.

[169] In this category were sometimes found municipia of the third
degree, such as Cære. (See Festus, under the word _Præfecturæ_, p.
233.)--Several of these towns, such as Fundi, Formiæ, and Arpinum,
obtained in the sequel the right of suffrage; they continued, however,
by an ancient usage, to be called by the name of _præfecturæ_, which was
also applied by abuse to the colonies.

[170] _Socius et amicus_ (Titus Livius, XXXI. 11).--Compare Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, VI. 95; X. 21.

[171] With Carthage, for example. (Polybius, III. 22.--Titus Livius,
VII. 27; IX. 19, 43.)

[172] Thus with the Latins. “Ut eosdem quos populus Romanus amicos atque
hostes habeant.” (Titus Livius, XXXVIII. 8.)

[173] Cicero, _Oration for Balbus_, xvi.

[174] The freedmen were, in fact, either Roman citizens, or Latins, or
ranged in the number of the _dediticii_; slaves who had, while they were
in servitude, undergone a grave chastisement, if they arrived at
freedom, obtained only the assimilation to the _dediticii_. If, on the
contrary, the slave had undergone no punishment, if he was more than
thirty years of age, if, at the same time, he belonged to his master
according to the law of the quirites, and if the formalities of
manumission or affranchisement exacted by the Roman law had been
observed, he was a Roman citizen. He was only Latin if one of these
circumstances failed. (_Institutes_ of Gaius, I. § 12, 13, 15, 16, 17.)

[175] “Valerius sent upon the lands conquered from the Volsci a colony
of a certain number of citizens chosen from among the poor, both to
serve as a garrison against the enemies, and to diminish at Rome the
party of the seditious.” (Year of Rome 260.) (Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, VI. 43.)--This great number of colonies, by clearing the
population of Rome of a multitude of indigent citizens, had maintained
tranquillity (452). (Titus Livius, X. 6.)

[176] Modern authors are not agreed on this point, which would require a
long discussion; but we may consider the question as solved in the sense
of our text by Madvig, _Opuscula_, I. pp. 244-254.

[177] “There the people (_populus_) named their magistrates; the
_duumviri_ performed the functions of consuls or prætors, whose title
they sometimes took (_Corpus Inscriptionum Latin._, _passim_); the
_quinquennales_ corresponded to the censors. Finally, there were
_questors_ and _ediles_. The Senate, as at Rome, was composed of
members, elected for life, to the number of a hundred; the number was
filled up every five years (_lectio senatus_).” (_Tabula Heracleensis_,
cap. x. _et seq._)

[178] A certain number of colonies figure in the list given by Dionysius
of Halicarnassus of the members of the confederacy (V. 61).

[179] Pliny, _Natural History_, III. iv. § 7.

[180] Because it named its magistrates, struck money (Mommsen,
_Münzwesen_, p. 317), privileges refused to the Roman colonies, and
preserved its own peculiar laws according to the principle: “Nulla
populi Romani lege adstricti, nisi in quam populus eorum fundus factus
est.” (Aulus Gellius, XVI. xiii. 6.--Compare Cicero, _Oration for
Balbus_, viii. 21.)

[181] Cicero, _Oration on the Agrarian Law_, ii. 27.

[182] Titus Livius, XXVII. 9.

[183] Florus, I. 16.

[184] Titus Livius, VIII. 13, 14.

[185] Titus Livius, VIII. 14. These towns had the right of city without
suffrage; of this number were Capua (in consideration of its knights,
who had refused to take part in the revolt), Cumæ, Fundi, and Formiæ.

[186] Velleius Paterculus, I. 15.

[187] Titus Livius, VIII. 14.

[188] Titus Livius, VIII. 14, _et seq._--Valerius Maximus, VI. ii. 1.

[189] Florus, I. 16.

[190] Titus Livius, VIII. 26; XXI. 49; XXII. 11.

[191] “Eam solam gentem restare.” (Titus Livius, VIII. 27.)

[192] Cicero, _de Officiis_, iii. 30.

[193] Titus Livius, IX. 24, 28.

[194] Diodorus Siculus, XX. 36.--Titus Livius, IX. 29.

[195] Diodorus Siculus, XIX. 101.

[196] Titus Livius, IX. 31.

[197] Diodorus Siculus, XX. 35.

[198] Now _Lago di Vadimone_ or _Bagnaccio_, situated on the right bank
and three miles from the Tiber, between that river and the Lake
Ciminius, about the latitude of _Narni_.

[199] Titus Livius, IX. 43.--Cicero, _Oration for Balbus_, 13.--Festus,
under the word _Præfecturæ_, p. 233.

[200] Titus Livius, IX. 45.--Diodorus Siculus, XX. 101.

[201] Titus Livius, IX. 45; X. 3, 10.

[202] Appian, _Samnite Wars_, § vii., p. 56, edit. Schweighæuser.

[203] Diodorus Siculus, XIX. 10.

[204] Titus Livius, X. 11, _et seq._

[205] Titus Livius, X. 22, _et seq._--Polybius, II. 19.--Florus, I. 17.

[206] Volsiniæ, Perusia, and Arretium. (Titus Livius, X. 37.)

[207] Orosius, III. 22.--Zonaras, VII. 2.--Eutropius, II. 9.

[208] Velleius Paterculus, I. 14.--Festus, under the word _Præfecturæ_,
p. 233.

[209] Dionysius of Halicarnassus, _Excerpta_, p. 2335, edit.
Schweighæuser.

[210] Polybius, II. 19, 24.

[211] Titus Livius, _Epitome_, XII., XIII., XIV.--Plutarch, _Pyrrhus, et
seq._--Florus, I. 18.--Eutropius, II. 11, _et seq._--Zonaras, VIII. 2.

[212] Valerius Maximus, III. vii. 10.

[213] Appian (_Samnite Wars_, X. iii., p. 65) says that Pyrrhus advanced
as far as Anagnia.

[214] Cicero, _Oration for Balbus_, xxii.

[215] Titus Livius, _Epitome_, XIV.--Orosius, IV. 3.

[216] Florus, I. 20.

[217] Titus Livius, _Epitome_, XV.--_Fasti Capitolini_, an. 487.

[218] ROMAN COLONIES.--Third period: 416-488.

     _Antium_ (416). A maritime colony (Volsci). _Torre d’Anzo_ or
     _Porto d’Anzo_.

     _Terracina_ (425). A maritime colony (Aurunci). (_Via Appia._)
     _Terracina._

     _Minturnæ_ (459). A maritime colony (Aurunci). (_Via Appia._) Ruins
     near _Trajetta_.

     _Sinuessa_ (459). A maritime colony (Campania). (_Via Appia._) Near
     _Rocca di Mondragone_.

     _Sena Gallica_ (465). A maritime colony (Umbria, _in agro
     Gallico_). (_Via Valeria._) _Sinigaglia._

     _Castrum Novum_ (465). A maritime colony (Picenum). (_Via
     Valeria._) _Giulia Nuova._

LATIN COLONIES.

     _Cales_ (420). Campania. (_Via Appia._) _Calvi._

     _Fregellæ_ (426). Volsci. In the valley of the Liris. _Ceprano_(?).
     Destroyed in 629.

     _Luceria_ (440). Apulia. _Lucera._

     _Suessa Aurunca_ (441). Aurunci. (_Via Appia._) _Sessa._

     _Pontiæ_ (441). Island opposite Circeii. _Ponza._

     _Saticula_ (441). On the boundary between Samnium and Campania.
     _Prestia_, near _Santa Agata de’ Goti_. Disappeared early.

     _Interamna_ (Lirinas) (442). Volsci. _Terame._ Not inhabited.

     _Sora_ (451). On the boundary between the Volsci and the Samnites.
     _Sora._ Already colonised in a previous period.

     _Alba Fucensis_ (451). Marsi. (_Via Valeria._) _Alba_, a village
     near _Avezzano_.

     _Narnia_ (455). Umbria. (_Via Flaminia._) _Narni._ Strengthened in
     555.

     _Carseoli_ (456). Æqui. (_Via Valeria._) _Cerita_, _Osteria del
     Cavaliere_, near _Carsoli_.

     _Venusia_ (463). Frontier between Lucania and Apulia. (_Via
     Appia._) _Venosa._ Re-fortified in 554.

     _Adria_ (or _Hatria_) (465). Picenum. (_Via Valeria_ and
     _Salaria_). _Adri._

     _Cosa_ (481). Etruria or Campania. _Ansedonia_(?), near
     _Orbitello_. Re-fortified in 557.

     _Pæstum_ (481). Lucania, _Pesto_. Ruins.

     _Ariminum_ (486). Umbria, _in agro Gallico_. (_Via Flaminia._)
     _Rimini._

     _Beneventum_ (486). Samnium. (_Via Appia._) _Benevento._


[219] Campanians: _Stellatina_. Etruscans: _Tromentina_, _Sabatina_,
_Arniensis_, in 367 (Titus Livius, VI. 5). Latins: _Mœcia_, and
_Scaptia_, in 422 (Titus Livius, VIII. 17). Volsci: _Pomptina_, and
_Publilia_, in 396 (Titus Livius, VII. 15). Ausones: _Ufentina_ and
_Falerna_, in 436 (Titus Livius, IX. 20). Æqui: _Aniensis_ and
_Terentina_, in 455 (Titus Livius, X. 9). Sabines: _Velina_ and
_Quirina_, in 513 (Titus Livius, _Epitome_, XIX.).

[220] At the beginning of each consular year, the magistrates or
deputies of the towns were obliged to repair to Rome, and the consuls
there fixed the contingent which each of them was to furnish according
to the list of the census. These lists were drawn up by the local
magistrates, who sent them to the Senate, and were renewed every five
years, except in the Latin colonies, where they seem to have taken for a
constant basis the number of primitive colonists.

[221] The country of the Samnites, among others, was completely cut up
by these domains.

[222] Titus Livius places in the mouth of the consul Decius, in 452,
these remarkable words: “Jam ne _nobilitatis_ quidem suæ plebeios
pœnitere” (Titus Livius, X. 7); and later still, towards 538, a tribune
expresses himself thus: “Nam _plebeios nobiles_ jam eisdem initiatos
esse sacris, et contemnere plebem, ex quo contemni desierint a patribus,
cœpisse.” (Titus Livius, XXII. 34.)

[223] Titus Livius, XIV. 48.

[224] We have the proof of this in the condemnation of those who
transgressed the law of Stolo. (Titus Livius, X. 13.)

[225] Valerius Maximus, IV. iii. 5.--Plutarch, _Cato_, iii.

[226] Valerius Maximus, IV. iii. 6.

[227] Valerius Maximus, IV. iii. 9.

[228] Titus Livius, IX. 46.

[229] “The goods of the debtor, not his body, should be responsible for
the debt. Thus all the captured citizens were free, and it was forbidden
for ever to put in bonds a debtor.” (Titus Livius, VIII. 28.)

[230] Ignorance of the calendar, and of the method of fixing the
festivals, left to the pontiffs alone the knowledge of the days when it
was permitted to plead.

[231] “The lawyers, for fear that their services might become useless in
judicial proceedings, invented certain formulæ, in order to make
themselves necessary.” (Cicero, _Pro Murena_, xi.)

[232] Titus Livius, _Epitome_, XI.--Pliny, XVI. x. 37.

[233] Cicero, _Brutus_, C. xiv.--Zonaras, _Annales_, VIII. 2.

[234] “You see here all the principal senators who set you the example.
They will partake with you the fatigues and perils of war, although the
laws and their age exempt them from carrying arms.” (_Speech of the
Dictator Postumius to his troops_; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, VI. 9.)

[235] Titus Livius, X., XII. 49.

[236] Valerius Maximus, II. viii. 4, 7.

[237] Plutarch, _Flamininus_, xxviii.

[238] Aur. Victor, _Ill. Men_, xxxvi. and xxvii.

[239] Titus Livius, IX. 10

[240] “A sedition was already rising between the patricians and the
people, and the terror of so sudden a war (with the Tiburtini) stifled
it.” (Titus Livius, VII. 12.)--“Appius Sabinus, to prevent the evils
which are an inevitable consequence of idleness, joined with want,
determined _to occupy the people in external wars, in order that,
gaining their living for themselves_, by finding on the lands of the
enemy abundant provisions which were not to be had in Rome, they might
render at the same time some service to the State, instead of troubling
at an unseasonable moment the senators in the administration of affairs.
He said that a town which, like Rome, disputed empire with all others,
and was hated by them, could not want a decent pretext for making war;
that, if they would judge the future by the past, they would see clearly
that all the seditions which had hitherto torn the Republic _had never
arrived except in time of peace_, when people no longer feared anything
from without.” (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, IX. 43.)

[241] Claudius made war thus in Umbria, and took the town of Camerinum,
the inhabitants of which he sold for slaves. (See Valerius Maximus, VI.
v. § 1.--Titus Livius, _Epitome_, XV.)--Camillus, after the capture of
Veii, caused the free men to be sold by auction. (Titus Livius, V.
22.)--In 365, the prisoners, the greater part Etruscans, were sold in
the same manner. (Titus Livius, VI. 4.)--The auxiliaries of the
Samnites, after the battle of Allifæ (447), were sold as slaves to the
number of 7,000. (Titus Livius, IX. 42.)

[242] “The military port alone contained two hundred and twenty
vessels.” (Appian, _Punic Wars_, VIII. 96, p. 437, ed. Schweighæuser.)

[243] Appian, _Punic Wars_, VIII. 95, p. 436.

[244] Strabo, XVII. iii. § 15.

[245] Appian, _Punic Wars_, VIII. 130, p. 490.

[246] 5,820,000 francs [£232,800]. (Appian, _Punic Wars_, CXXVII. 486.)
Following the labours of MM. Letronne, Böckh, Mommsen, &c., we have
admitted for the sums indicated in the course of the present work the
following reckonings:--

  The _as_ of copper = 1/10 deniers = 5 centimes.
  The _sestertius_ = 0.975 grammes = 19 centimes.
  The _denarius_ = 3.898 grammes = 75 centimes.
  The _great sestertius_ = 100,000 sestertii = 19,000 francs [£760].
  The Attic or Euboic _talent_, of 26 kilogrammes,
    196 grammes = 5,821 francs [£232 16s.].
  The _mina_, of 436 grammes = 97 francs.
  The _drachma_, of 4.37 grammes = 97 centimes.
  The _obolus_, of 0.73 grammes = 16 centimes.

The Æginetic talent was equivalent to 8,500 Attic drachmas (37
kilogrammes, 2 gr.) = 8,270 francs [£330 16s.]. The Babylonic silver
talent is of 33 kilogrammes, 42 = 7,426 francs [£297]. (See, for
details, Mommsen, _Römisches Münzwesen_, pp. 24-26, 55. Hultsch,
_Griechische und Römische Metrologie_, pp. 135-137.)

[247] Nearly 700,000 francs [£28,000]. (Athenæus, XII. lviii. 509, ed.
Schweighæuser.)

[248] Strabo, XVII. iii. § 15.

[249] Scylax of Caryanda, _Periplus_, p. 51 _et seq._, ed. Hudson.

[250] See the work of Heeren, _Ideen über die Politik, den Verkehr, und
den Handel der vornehmsten Völker der alten Welt_, Part I., Vol. II.,
secs. v. and vi., p. 163 _et seq._, 188 _et seq._ 3rd edit.

[251] Athenæus informs us that Polemon had composed an entire treatise
on the mantles of the divinities of Carthage. (XII. lviii. 541.)

[252] Herodotus, VII. 145.--Polybius, I. 67.--Titus Livius, XXVIII. 41.

[253] Reckoning, after Titus Livius, her troops at the time of the
second Punic War, we find a force of 291,000 foot and 9,500 horse.
(Titus Livius, Books XXI. to XXIX.)

[254] Carthage, under certain circumstances, could make daily a hundred
and forty shields, three hundred swords, five hundred lances, and a
thousand darts for catapults. (Strabo, XVII. iii. § 15.)

[255] Strabo, XVII. iii. § 15.

[256] In 513, 3,200 Euboic talents (18,627,200 francs [£745,088]); in
516, 1,200 talents (6,985,200 francs [£279,408]); in 552, 10,000 talents
(58,210,000 francs [£2,328,400]). Scipio, the first Africanus, brought,
besides this, 123,000 pounds weight of gold from this town. (Polybius,
I. 62, 63, 88; XV. 18.--Titus Livius, XXX. 37, 45.)

[257] Aristotle, _Politics_, VII. iii. § 5.--Polybius, I. 72.

[258] Diodorus Siculus, XX. 17.

[259] Pliny, _Natural History_, V. iii. 24.

[260] Scylax of Caryanda, _Periplus_, p. 49. edit. Hudson.

[261] Polybius, XII. 3.

[262] Titus Livius, XXXIV. 62.

[263] 58,200 francs (£2,328). (Titus Livius, XXII. 31.)

[264] Sallust, _Jugurtha_, xix.

[265] Pliny, citing this fact, throws doubt upon it. (_Natural History_,
V. i. 8.)--See the _Periplus_ of Hanno, in the collection of the minor
Greek geographers.

[266] Strabo, III. v. § 3.

[267] Strabo, III. ii. § 1.

[268] Pliny, _Natural History_, III. iii. 30.--Strabo, III. ii. § 8.

[269] Strabo, III. ii. § 3.--Pliny, III. i. 3; XXXIII. vii. 40.

[270] Above 25,000 francs [£1,000]. (Strabo, III. ii. § 10.)

[271] 767,695 pounds of silver and 10,918 pounds of gold, without
reckoning what was furnished by certain partial impositions, sometimes
very heavy, such as those of Marcolica, one million of sestertii
(230,000 francs [£9,200]), and of Certima, 2,400,000 sestertii (550,000
francs [£22,000]). (See Books XXVIII. to XLVI. of Titus Livius.) Such
were the resources of Spain, even in the smallest localities, that in
602, C. Marcellus imposed on a little town of the Celtiberians
(_Ocilis_) a contribution of thirty talents of silver (about 174,600
francs [£6,984]); and this contribution was regarded by the neighbouring
cities as most moderate. (Appian, _Wars of Spain_, VI. xlviii. 158, ed.
Schweighæuser.) Posidonius, cited by Strabo (III. iv., p. 135), relates
that M. Marcellus extorted from the Celtiberians a tribute of six
hundred talents (about 3,492,600 francs [£139,704]).

[272] A fabulous people, spoken of by Homer. (Athenæus, I. xxviii. 60,
edit. Schweighæuser.)

[273] Diodorus Siculus, V. 34, 35.

[274] Pliny, _Natural History_, XIX. i. 10.

[275] In the time of Hannibal, this town was one of the richest in the
peninsula. (Appian, _Wars of Spain_, xii. 113.)

[276] Strabo, III. iv. § 2.

[277] Polybius, XXXIV., _Fragm._, 8.

[278] The medimnus of barley (52 litres) sold for one drachma (97
centimes); the medimnus of wheat, 9 oboli (about 1 franc 45 centimes).
(The medium value of 52 litres in France is 10 francs.) A metretes of
wine (39 litres) was worth one drachma (97 centimes); a hare, one obolus
(16 centimes); a goat, one obolus (16 centimes); a lamb, from 3 to 4
oboli (50 to 60 centimes); a pig of a hundred pounds weight, 5 drachmas
(4 francs 85 centimes); a sheep, 2 drachmas (1 franc 95 centimes); an ox
for drawing, 10 drachmas (9 francs 70 centimes); a calf, 5 drachmas (4
francs 85 centimes); a _talent_ (26 kilogrammes) of figs, 3 oboli (45
centimes).

[279] Strabo, III. ii. § 1.

[280] Appian, _Wars of Spain_, i. 102.--Pompey, in the trophies which he
raised to himself on the coast of Catalonia, affirmed that he had
received the submission of eight hundred and seventy-seven _oppida_.
(Pliny, _Natural History_, III. iii. 18.)--Pliny reckoned two hundred
and ninety-three in Hispania Citerior, and a hundred and seventy-nine in
Bætica. (_Natural History_, III. iii. 18.)--We may, moreover, form an
idea of the number of inhabitants by the amount of troops raised to
resist the Scipios. In adding together the numbers furnished by the
historians, we arrive at the fearful total of 317,700 men killed or made
prisoners. (Titus Livius, XXX. _et. seq._)--In 548, we see two nations
of Spain, the Ilergetes and the Ausetani, joined with some other petty
tribes, put on foot an army of 30,000 infantry and 4,000 cavalry. (Titus
Livius, XXIX. 1.)--We remark fifteen to twenty others whose forces are
equal or superior. After the battle of Zama, Spain furnished Hasdrubal
with 50,000 footmen and 4,500 horsemen. (Titus Livius, XXVIII. 12,
13.)--Cato has no sooner appeared with his fleet before Emporiæ, than an
army of 40,000 Spaniards, who could only have been collected in the
surrounding country, is ready prepared to resist him. (Appian, _Wars of
Spain_, 40, p. 147.)--In Lusitania itself, a country of which the
population was much less, we see Servius Galba and Lucullus killing
12,500 men. (Appian, _Wars of Spain_, 58, 59, p. 170 _et.
seq._)--Although laid waste and depopulated by these two generals, the
country, at the end of a few years, furnished again to Viriathus
considerable forces.

[281] Titus Livius, XXII. 20.

[282] Strabo, IV. i. § 11; ii. § 14; iii. § 3.

[283] See what M. Amedée Thierry says, _Hist. des Gaul._, II. 134 _et
seq._ 3d edit.

[284] Pliny, XXI. 31.

[285] Diodorus Siculus, V. 26.--Athenæus, IV. xxxvi. 94.

[286] Demosthenes, _Thirty-second Oration against Zenothemis_, 980,
edit. Bekker.

[287] Strabo, IV. vi. § 2, 3.

[288] Diodorus Siculus, V. xxxix.

[289] See Titus Livius, XXXII. to XLII.

[290] See Strabo, V. i. § 10, 11.

[291] Strabo, V. i. § 12.

[292] Gold was originally very abundant in Gaul; but the mines whence it
was extracted, and the rivers which carried it, must have been soon
exhausted, for the quality of the Gaulish gold coins becomes more and
more abased as the date of their fabrication approaches that of the
Roman conquest.

[293] Strabo, V. i. § 7.--Titus Livius, X. 2.

[294] Pliny, _Natural History_, III. xvi. 119.--Martial, _Epigr._, IV.
xxv.--_Antonine Itinerary_, 126.

[295] Pliny, _Natural History_, XXXVII. iii. § 11.

[296] Small vessels, quick sailers, and rapid in their movements,
excellent for piracy; also called _liburnæ_, from the name of the people
who employed them.

[297] Polybius, II. 5.

[298] Titus Livius, XLI. 2, 4, 11.

[299] Polybius, II. 8.

[300] Titus Livius, XXXIX. 5.

[301] Pliny, XXXV. 60.

[302] Polybius, XXII. 13.

[303] Polybius, XXX. xv. § 5.--Titus Livius, XLV. 34.

[304] Plutarch, _Flamininus_, 2.

[305] Polybius, V. 9.

[306] Aristides, _Panathen._, p. 149.

[307] Pausanias, _Attica_, xxviii.

[308] Plutarch, _Sylla_, 20.

[309] Pausanias, _Laconia_, xi. We must further mention the famous
temple of bronze of Minerva, the two gymnasia, and the Platanistum, a
spacious place where the competitions of the youths took place,
(Pausanias, _Laconia_, xiv.)

[310] Stephanus of Byzantium, under the word Λακεδαἱμων, p. 413.

[311] Pausanias, _Laconia_, xxi.

[312] Titus Livius, XXXIV. 29.

[313] Pausanias, _Arcadia_, xlv.

[314] Pausanias, _Arcadia_, xli. Thirty-six columns out of thirty-eight
are still standing.

[315] Pliny, _Natural History_, XIX. i. 4.

[316] Pausanias, _Elis_, II. 23 and 24.

[317] Pausanias, _Elis_, I. ii.

[318] Strabo, VIII. § 10, 19.

[319] Pausanias, _Corinth_, xxviii. 1.

[320] Pausanias, _Corinth_, xxvii.

[321] “Goods were not obliged to make the circuit by Corinth; a direct
road crossed the isthmus in the narrowest part, and they had even
established there a system of rollers on which vessels of small tonnage
were transported from one sea to the other.” (Strabo, VIII. ii. §
3.--Polybius, IV. 19.)

[322] Pausanias, _Attica_, ii.

[323] Cicero, _De Republica_, II. 4.--Strabo, VIII. vi. § 20.

[324] Strabo, VIII. vi. § 23.--Pliny, _Natural History_, XXXV. x. § 36.

[325] Arrian, _Expedition of Alexander_, I. xvi. 4.--Velleius
Paterculus, I. 40.--Plutarch, _Alexander_, 16.

[326] Athenæus, VI. 272.

[327] Titus Livius, XXXII. 16.

[328] Titus Livius, XLV. 18, 29.

[329] Titus Livius, XLII. 12.

[330] “These were, in money, 100 talents (582,000 francs [£23,280]), and
in wheat, 100,000 artabæ (52,500 hectolitres); and also considerable
quantities of ship-building timber, tar, lead, and iron.” (Polybius, V.
89.)

[331] About 1,164,000 francs [£46,560]. Perseus had promised him twice
as much. (Titus Livius, XLII. 67.)

[332] Titus Livius, XLIV. 42.

[333] Titus Livius, XLIV. 41.

[334] Titus Livius, XLV. 82.

[335] Titus Livius, XLV. 33.

[336] It lasted three days: the first was hardly sufficient to pass in
review the 250 chariots laden with statues and paintings; the second
day, it was the turn of the arms, placed on cars, which were followed by
3,000 warriors carrying 750 urns full of money; each, borne by four men,
contained three talents (the whole amounting to more than 13 millions of
francs [£520,000]). After them came those who carried vessels of silver,
chased and wrought. On the third day appeared in the triumphal
procession those who carried the gold coins, with 77 urns, each of which
contained three talents (the total about 17 millions [£680,000]); next
came a consecrated cup, of the weight of ten talents, and enriched with
precious stones, made by order of the Roman general. All this preceded
the prisoners, Perseus and his household; and, lastly, came the car of
the triumphant general. (Plutarch, _Paulus Æmilius_, 32, 33.)

[337] Titus Livius, XLV. 40.

[338] Polybius, IV. 38, 44, 45.

[339] Aristotle, _Politics_, VI. 4, § 1.--Ælian, _Various Histories_,
III. 14.

[340] Strabo, VII. vi. § 2; XII. iii. § 11.

[341] Cicero, _Oration for the Law Manilia_, vi.

[342] Plutarch, _Sylla_, xxv.

[343] Especially the fish called _pelamydes_, objects of research
throughout Greece. (Strabo, VII. vi. § 2; XII. iii. § 11, § 19.)

[344] Strabo, XII. iii. § 19.

[345] Strabo, XII. iii. § 13. Gadilonitis extended to the south-west of
Amisus (_Samsoun_).

[346] Polybius, V. 44, 55.--Ezekiel xxvii. 13, 14.

[347] Xenophon, _Retreat of the Ten Thousand_, V. v. 34.--Homer,
_Iliad_, II. 857.

[348] Strabo, XII. iii. § 19.

[349] There passed in the procession a statue of gold of the King of
Pontus, six feet high, with his shield set with precious stones, twenty
stands covered with vases of silver, thirty-two others full of vases of
gold, with arms of the same metal, and with gold coinage; these stands
were carried by men followed by eight mules loaded with golden beds, and
after whom came fifty-six others carrying ingots of silver, and a
hundred and seven carrying all the silver money, amounting to 2,700,000
drachmas (2,619,000 francs [£104,760]). (Plutarch, _Lucullus_, xxxvii.)

[350] Plutarch, _Lucullus_, xxiii.

[351] Strabo, XII. iii. § 13, 14.

[352] Appian, _War against Mithridates_, lxxviii.

[353] Plutarch, _Lucullus_, xiv.

[354] See what is reported by Plutarch (_Lucullus_, xxix.) of the riches
and objects of art of every species with which Tigranocerta was crammed.

[355] Appian, _Wars of Mithridates_, xiii. p. 658; xv. p. 662; xvii. p.
664.

[356] Appian, _Wars of Mithridates_, xvii. 664. Lesser Armenia furnished
1,000 horsemen. Mithridates had a hundred and thirty chariots armed with
scythes.

[357] Strabo, XII. iv. § 2.--Stephanus Byzantinus, under the word
Νικομἡδειον.--Pliny, _Natural History_, V. xxxii. 149.

[358] Strabo, XII. iii. § 6.

[359] Appian, _Wars of Mithridates_, xvii.

[360] Strabo, XII. v. § 7.

[361] Strabo (XII. v. § 3) tells us that Pessinus was the greatest mart
of the province.

[362] Titus Livius, XXXVIII. 23.

[363] Titus Livius, XXXVIII. 26.

[364] Diodorus Siculus, XVIII. 16.

[365] Strabo, XII. ii. § 10.

[366] About 3,500,000 francs [£140,000]. (Titus Livius, XXXVIII. 37.)
See Appian, _Wars of Syria_, xlii.--“Demetrius obtained soon afterwards
a thousand talents (5,821,000 francs [£232,840]) from Olophernes for
having established him on the throne of Cappadocia.” (Appian, _Wars of
Syria_, xlvii.)

[367] Strabo, XII. ii. 7, 8.

[368] Falkener, _Ephesus_: London, 1862.

[369] _Natural History_, V. xxx. 126.

[370] It was thence that the fleets of the kings of Pergamus put to sea.
(Titus Livius, XXXVIII. 40; XLIV. 28.)

[371] The name of Pergamus is preserved in our modern languages in the
word “parchment” (_pergamena_), which was used to designate the skin
which was prepared in that town to serve as paper, after the Ptolemies
had prohibited the exportation of Egyptian papyrus.

[372] Attalus I., King of Pergamus, gave to the Sicyonians 11,000
medimni of wheat. (Titus Livius, XXXII. 40.)--Eumenius II. lent 80,000
to the Rhodians. (Polybius, XXXI. xvii. 2.)

[373] Strabo, XII. viii. § 11.

[374] Athenæus, XV. xxxviii. 513, ed. Schweighæuser.

[375] The Sea of Marmora took its name from these quarries of marble.

[376] Κυξικηνοἱ στατἡρες, whence the word _sequins_.

[377] Strabo, XIII. i. § 23.

[378] Strabo, XV. iii. § 22.

[379] Titus Livius, XXXII. 16; XXXVI. 43.

[380] Titus Livius, XXXVII. 8.

[381] The petty king Moagetes, who reigned at Cibyra, in Phrygia, gave a
hundred talents and 10,000 medimni of corn (Polybius, XXII. 17.--Titus
Livius, XXXVIII. 14 and 15); Termessus, fifty talents; Aspendus,
Sagalassus, and all the cities of Pamphylia, paid the same (Polybius,
XXII. 18 and 19); and the towns of this part of Asia contributed, at the
first summons of the Roman general, for about 600 talents (3,500,000
francs [£140,000]); they also delivered to him about 60,000 medimni of
corn.

[382] Titus Livius, XXXIX. 6.

[383] Manlius, although he had been despoiled on his way home of a part
of his immense booty by the mountaineers of Thrace, displayed, at his
triumph, crowns of gold to the weight of 212 pounds, 220,000 pounds of
silver, 2,103 pounds of gold, more than 127,000 Attic tetradrachms,
250,000 cistophori, and 16,320 gold coins of Philip. (Titus Livius,
XXXIX. 7.)

[384] Appian, _Wars of Mithridates_, lxiii.

[385] Arrian, _Campaigns of Alexander_, I. xx. § 3.--Diodorus, XVII. 23.

[386] Strabo, XIV. ii. 565.

[387] Strabo, XIV. i. § 6.

[388] Pliny, _Natural History_, V. 31.

[389] Strabo, XIV. iii. § 6.

[390] Titus Livius, XXXVIII. 39.

[391] Scylax, _Periplus_, 39, ed. Hudson.--Dio Cassius, XLVII. 34.

[392] Herodotus, I. 176.

[393] Pliny, _Natural History_, V. 28.

[394] Strabo, XIV. v. § 2.

[395] Strabo, XIV. v. § 2.

[396] Tarsus had still naval arsenals in the time of Strabo (XIV. v. §
12 _et seq._).

[397] Arrian, _Anabasis_, II. 5.

[398] Polybius, XXII. 7.

[399] Seleucus founded sixteen towns of the name of _Antiochia_, five of
the name of _Laodicea_, nine of the name of _Seleucia_, three of the
name of _Apamea_, one of the name of _Stratonicea_, and a great number
of others which equally received Greek names. (Appian, _Wars of Syria_,
lvii. 622.)--Pliny (_Natural History_, VI. xxvi. 117) informs us that it
was the Seleucides who collected into towns the inhabitants of
Babylonia, who before only inhabited villages (_vici_), and had no other
cities than Nineveh and Babylon.

[400] Pliny (_Natural History_, VI. 26, 119) mentions one of these towns
which was 70 stadia in circuit, and in his time was reduced to a mere
fortress.

[401] Strabo, XVI. ii. § 5.--Pausanias, VI. ii. § 7.

[402] John Malalas, _Chronicle_, VIII. 200 and 202, ed. Dindorf.

[403] Strabo, XVI. ii. § 4.

[404] Strabo, XVI. ii. § 6.

[405] Strabo, XVI. ii. § 10.

[406] It was raised on a terrace a thousand feet long by three hundred
feet broad, and was built with stones 70 feet long.

[407] The empire of Seleucus comprised seventy-two satrapies. (Appian,
_Wars of Syria_, lxii. 630.)

[408] Polybius, X. 27. Ecbatana paid to Antiochus III. a tribute of
4,000 talents (Attic talents = 23,284,000 francs [£931,360]), the
produce of the casting of silver tiles which roofed one of its temples.
Alexander the Great had already carried away those of the roof of the
palace of the kings.

[409] The country of Gerra, among the Arabians, paid 500 talents to
Antiochus (Attic talents = 2,910,500 francs [£116,420]). (Polybius,
XIII. 9.)--There was formerly a great quantity of gold in Arabia. (Job
xxviii. 1, 2.--Diodorus Siculus, II. 50.)

[410] Strabo, XVI. iii. § 3.

[411] Strabo, XI. ii. 426 _et seq._

[412] Pliny, _Natural History_, VI. 11.

[413] Polybius, V. 54. If, as is probable, Babylonian talents are
intended, this would make about 7,426,000 francs [£297,040], Seleucia,
on the Tigris, was very populous. Pliny (_Natural History_, VI. 26)
estimates the number of its inhabitants at 600,000. Strabo (XVI. ii. §
5) tells us that Seleucia was even greater than Antioch. This town,
which had succeeded Babylon, appears to have inherited a part of its
population.

[414] In 565, Antiochus III. gives 15,000 talents (Euboic talents =
87,315,000 francs [£3,492,600]). (Polybius, XXI. 14.--Titus Livius,
XXXVIII. 37.) In the treaty of the following year, the Romans stipulated
for a tribute of 12,000 Attic talents of the purest gold, payable in
twelve years, each talent of 80 pounds Roman (69,852,000 francs
[£2,794,080]). (Polybius, XXII. 26, § 19.) In addition to this, Eumenes
was to receive 359 talents (2,089,739 francs [£83,589]), payable in five
years (Polybius, XXII. 26, § 20).--Titus Livius (XXXVIII. 38) says only
350 talents.

[415] The father of Antiochus, Seleucus Callinicus, sent to the Rhodians
200,000 medimni of wheat (104,000 hectolitres). (Polybius, V. 89.) In
556, Antiochus gave 540,000 measures of wheat to the Romans. (Polybius,
XXII. 26, § 19.)

[416] According to Strabo (XV. 3), wheat and barley produced there a
hundredfold, and even twice as much, which is hardly probable.

[417] Strabo, XVI. 2.

[418] Athenæus, XII. 35, p. 460, ed. Schweighæuser.

[419] Polybius, XXXI. 3.--There were seen in these festivals a thousand
slaves carrying silver vases, the least of which weighed 1,000 drachmas;
a thousand slaves carrying golden vases and a profusion of plate of
extraordinary richness. Antiochus received every day at his table a
crowd of guests whom he allowed to carry away with them in chariots
innumerable provisions of all sorts. (Athenæus, V. 46, p. 311, ed.
Schweighæuser.)

[420] Polybius, V. 79.

[421] Titus Livius, XXXVII. 37.

[422] Strabo, XVI. 2.

[423] Polybius, V. 70.

[424] Titus Livius, XXXIII. 41.--Polybius, V. 59.--Strabo, XVI. 2.

[425] Strabo, XVI. 2.

[426] Strabo, XIV. 5.

[427] In 558, Antiochus sent to sea a hundred covered vessels and two
hundred light ships. (Titus Livius, XXXIII. 19.)--It is the greatest
Syrian fleet mentioned in these wars. At the battle of Myonnesus, the
fleet commanded by Polyxenus was composed of ninety decked ships (574).
(Appian, _Wars of Syria_, 27.)--In 563, before the final struggle
against the Romans, that prince had forty decked vessels, sixty without
decks, and two hundred transport ships. (Titus Livius, XXXV.
43.)--Finally, the next year, a little before the battle of Magnesia,
Antiochus possessed, not including the Phœnician fleet, a hundred
vessels of moderate size, of which seventy had decks. (Titus Livius,
XXXVI. 43; XXXVII. 8.)--This navy was destroyed by the Romans.

[428] Herodotus, II. 177.--Diodorus Siculus, I. 31.

[429] A measure great enough to make thirty loaves. (Franz, _Corpus
Inscript. Græcarum_, III. 303.--Polybius, V. 79.)

[430] Böckh, _Staatshaushaltung der Athener_, I. xiv. 15.

[431] Flavius Josephus, _Jewish Antiquities_, XII. 4.

[432] Athenæus, V. p. 203.

[433] Appian (_Preface_, § 10).--We may, nevertheless, judge from the
following data of the enormity of the sums accumulated in the treasuries
of the kings of Persia. Cyrus had gained, by the conquest of Asia,
34,000 pounds weight of gold coined, and 500,000 of silver. (Pliny,
XXXIII. 15.)--Under Darius, son of Hystaspes, 7,600 Babylonian talents
of silver (the Babylonian talent = 7,426 francs [£297]) were poured
annually into the royal treasury, besides 140 talents devoted to the pay
of the Cilician cavalry, and 360 talents of gold (14,680 talents of
silver), paid by the Indies. (Herodotus, III. 94.)--This king had thus
an annual revenue of 14,500 talents (108 millions of francs
[£4,320,000]). Darius carried with him in campaign two hundred camels
loaded with gold and precious objects. (Demosthenes, _On the Symmories_,
p. 185, xv. p. 622, ed. Müller.)--Thus, according to Strabo, Alexander
the Great found in the four great treasuries of that king (at Susa,
Persia, Pasargades, and Persepolis) 180,000 talents (about 1,337
millions of francs [£53,480,000]).

[434] Polybius, V. 89.

[435] Strabo, XVII. 1.

[436] Strabo, XVII. 1.

[437] Strabo, XVI. 4; XVII.

[438] Strabo, XVII. 1.

[439] Diodorus Siculus, III. 43.

[440] Appian, _Preface_, § 10.--In 537, at Raphia, the Egyptian army
amounted to 70,000 foot, 5,000 cavalry, and 73 elephants. (Polybius, V.
79; see also V. 65.)--Polybius, who gives us these details, adds that
the pay of the officers was one mina (97 francs [£3 17_s._ 7_d._]) a
day. (XIII. ii.)

[441] Theocritus, _Idylls_, XVII. lines 90-102.--Athenæus (V. 36, p.
284) and Appian, _Preface_, § 10, give the details of this
fleet.--Ptolemy IV. Philopator went so far as to construct a ship of
forty ranges of rowers, which was 280 cubits long and 30 broad.
(Athenæus, V. 37, p. 285.)

[442] Herodotus, IV. 199. The plateau of Barca, now desert, was then
cultivated and well watered.

[443] The most important object of commerce of the Cyrenaica was the
_silphium_, a plant the root of which sold for its weight in silver. A
kind of milky gum was extracted from it, which served as a panacea with
the apothecaries and as a seasoning in the kitchen. When, in 658,
Cyrenaica was incorporated with the Roman Republic, the province paid an
annual tribute in silphium. Thirty pounds of this juice, brought to Rome
in 667, were regarded as a miracle; and when Cæsar, at the beginning of
the civil war, seized upon the public treasury, he found in the treasury
chest 1,500 pounds of silphium locked up with the gold and silver.
(Pliny, XIX. 3.)

[444] Diodorus Siculus, III. 49.--Herodotus, IV. 169.--Athenæus, XV. 22,
p. 487; 38, p. 514.--Strabo, XVII. iii. 712.--Pliny, _Natural History_,
XVI. 33; XIX. 3.

[445] Pindar, _Pythian Odes_, IV. 2.--Athenæus, III. 58, p. 392.

[446] Diodorus Siculus, XVII. 49.

[447] Aristotle, _Politics_, VII. 2, § 10.

[448] Josephus, _Jewish Antiquities_, XIII. 12, § 2, 3.

[449] Ælian, _History of Animals_, V. lvi.--Eustathius, _Comment. on
Dionysius Periegetes_, 508, 198, edit. Bernhardy.

[450] Strabo, XIV. 6.--Pliny, _Natural History_, XXXIV. 2.

[451] Virgil, _Æneid_, I. 415.--Statius, _Thebais_, V. 61.

[452] Strabo, X. 4.

[453] Polybius, XIII. 8.

[454] Cretan mercenaries are found in the service of Flamininus in 557
(Titus Livius, XXXIII. 3), in that of Antiochus in 564 (Titus Livius,
XXXVII. 40), in that of Perseus in 583 (Titus Livius, XLII. 51), and in
the service of Rome in 633.

[455] _Iliad_, II. 656.

[456] Polybius, XXX. 7, year of Rome 590.

[457] Strabo, XIV. 2. The town of _Rhoda_ in Spain, establishments in
the Baleares, _Gela_ in Sicily, _Sybaris_ and _Palæopolis_ in Italy,
were Rhodian colonies.

[458] This happened especially at the epoch when the famous Colossus of
Rhodes fell, and when the town was violently shaken by an earthquake.
Hiero, tyrant of Syracuse, Ptolemy, king of Egypt, Antigonus Doson, king
of Macedonia, and Seleucus, king of Syria, sent succours to the
Rhodians. (Polybius, V. 88, 89.)

[459] We see, in fact, with what care the Rhodians spared their allies
on the coast of the Pontus Euxinus. (Polybius, XXVII. 6.)

[460] Polybius, IV. 38.

[461] Strabo, VII. 4.

[462] Titus Livius, XXXIII. 18.

[463] During the siege of Rhodes, Demetrius had formed the design of
delivering to the flames all the public buildings, one of which
contained the famous painting of Ialysus, by Protogenes. The Rhodians
sent a deputation to Demetrius to ask him to spare this masterpiece.
After this interview, Demetrius raised the siege, sparing thus at the
same time the town and the picture. (Aulus Gellius, XV. 31.)

[464] In 555, twenty ships; in 556, twenty vessels with decks; in 563,
twenty-five ships with decks, and thirty-six vessels. This last fleet of
thirty-six vessels was destroyed, and yet the Rhodians were able to send
to sea again, the same year, twenty vessels. In 584 they had forty
vessels. (Titus Livius, XXXI. 46; XXXII. 16; XXXVI. 45; XXXVII. 9, 11,
12; XLII. 45.)

[465] Pliny, XXXIV. 17.

[466] Strabo, XIV. 2.

[467] Athenæus, XII. 35, p. 461.

[468] Titus Livius, XXIII. 34.

[469] Titus Livius, XXIII. 40.

[470] Titus Livius, XLI. 12, 17, 28.--The number of 80,000 men whom the
Sardinians lost in the campaign of T. Gracchus, in 578 and 579, was
given by the official inscription which was seen at Rome in the temple
of the goddess Matuta. (Titus Livius, XLI. 28.)

[471] Festus, p. 322, edit. O. Müller.--Titus Livius, XLI. 21.

[472] See Heeren, vol. IV. sect. I. chap. ii.--Polybius, I. 79.--Strabo,
V. ii. 187.--Diodorus Siculus, V. 15.--Titus Livius, XXIX. 36.

[473] Titus Livius, XXX. 38.

[474] Strabo, V. 2.

[475] Diodorus Siculus, V. 14.--The Corsicans having revolted, in 573,
had 2,000 slain. (Titus Livius, XL. 34.)--In 581, they lost 7,000 men,
and had more than 1,700 prisoners. (Titus Livius, XLII. 7.)

[476] Strabo, V. 2.

[477] Pliny, _Natural History_, III. 6.

[478] Diodorus Siculus, V. 13.--In 573, the Corsicans were taxed by the
Romans at 1,000,000 pounds of wax, and at 200,000 in 581. (Titus Livius,
XL. 34; XLII. 7.)

[479] Cicero, _Second Oration against Verres_, II. ii. 74.--The oxen
furnished hides, employed especially for the tents; the sheep, an
excellent wool for clothing.

[480] Cicero, _Second Oration against Verres_, II. III. 70.

[481] Titus Livius, XXV. 31.

[482] Polybius, I. 17, 18.

[483] Polybius, IX. 27.--Strabo, VI. 2.

[484] See what is said by Titus Livius (XXIX. 26) and Polybius (I. 41,
43, 46).--Florus, II. 2.

[485] See the work of the Duke of Serra di Falco, _Antichità della
Sicilia_.

[486] Thus the Jupiter of the Capitol and the Italic Juno, at least in
their official worship, were the protectors of virtuous morals and
punished the wicked, while the Phœnician Moloch and Hercules, worshipped
at Carthage, granted their favours to those who made innocent blood run
upon their altars. (Diodorus Siculus, XX. 14.)--See the remarkable
figures of Moloch holding a gridiron destined for human sacrifices.
(Alb. della Marmora, _Sardinian Antiquities_, pl. 23, 53, tom. ii. 254.)

[487] Polybius, I. 7, 11.

[488] Polybius, I. 16.--Zonaras, VIII. 16 _et seq._

[489] We have seen before that Rome, after the capture of Antium (_Porto
d’Anzo_), had already a navy, but she had no galleys of three ranks or
five ranks of oars. Nothing, therefore, is more probable than the
relation of Titus Livius, who states that the Romans took for a model a
Carthaginian quinquireme wrecked on their coast. In spite of the
advanced state of science, we have not yet obtained a perfect knowledge
of the construction of the ancient galleys, and, even at the present
day, the problem will not be completely solved until chance furnishes us
with a model.

[490] The Romans employed the triremes of Tarentum, Locri, Elea, and
Naples to cross the Strait of Messina. The use of quinquiremes was
entirely unknown in Italy.

[491] Polybius, I. 20, 21.

[492] Each vessel carried 300 rowers and 120 soldiers, or 420 men, which
makes, for the Carthaginian fleet, 147,000 men, and, for the Roman
fleet, 138,600. (Polybius, I. 25 and 26.)

[493] Nearly thirteen millions of francs [£520,000]. (Polybius, I. 62.)

[494] Polybius, I. 36.

[495] Valerius Maximus, V. i. 2.

[496] Titus Livius, _Epitome_, XIX.

[497] Polybius, III. 10, 27, 28.

[498] The Sardinians owed their civilisation to the Phœnicians; the
Sicilians had received theirs from the Greeks. This difference explains
the attachment of the first for Carthage, and the repulsion of the
others for the Punic rule.

[499] Polybius, II. 4, 5, 10.

[500] Hahn, _Albanesische Studien_.

[501] Florus, II. 5.--Appian, _Wars of Illyria_, 7.

[502] Polybius, II. 11 _et seq._

[503] Titus Livius, _Epitome_, XX., year of Rome 533.--Orosius, IV.
xiii.

[504] Polybius, III. 16 _et seq._

[505] A people situated between the Rhone and the Alps. (Polyb., II. 22,
34.)

[506] “It was not Rome alone that the Italians, terrified by the Gaulish
invasion, believed they had thus to defend; they understood that it was
their own safety which was in danger.” (Polybius, II. 23.)

[507] The following, according to Polybius (II. 24), was the number of
the forces of Italy:--

                                              FOOT.           HORSE.
  Two consular armies, each of two legions,
    of 5,200 foot and 300 cavalry            20,800           1,200
  Allied troops                              30,000           2,000
  Sabines and Etruscans                      50,000 more than 4,000
  Umbrians and Sarsinates, inhabitants of
    the Apennines                            20,000            --
  Cenomani and Veneti                        30,000            --
  At Rome                                    20,000           1,500
  Allies (of the reserve)                    30,000           2,000
  Latins                                     80,000           5,000
  Samnites                                   70,000           7,000
  Iapygians and Messapians                   50,000          16,000
  Lucanians                                  30,000           3,000
  Marsi, Marrucini, Frentani, and Vestini    20,000           4,000
  In Sicily and at Tarentum, two legions of
    4,200 foot and 200 horse                  8,400             400
  Roman and Campanian citizens              250,000          23,000
                                            -------          ------
                                            699,200          69,100



[508] See the Memoir of Zumpt, _Stand der Bevölkerung im Alterthum_.
Berlin, 1841.

[509] Polybius, III. 30.

[510] Titus Livius, XXI. 7.

[511] Appian, _Wars of Spain_, 10.

[512] Polybius, III. 90.--“The allies had till then remained firm in
their attachment.” (Titus Livius, XXII. 61.)--“This fidelity which they
have preserved towards us in the midst of our reverses.” (_Speech of
Fabius_, Titus Livius, XXII. 39.)

[513] There were among the Roman troops Samnite cavalry. (Titus Livius,
XXVII. 43.)

[514] Titus Livius, XXII. 49; XXIII. 12.--“In the second Punic war, the
use of rings had already become common; otherwise it would have been
impossible for Hannibal to send three _modii_ of rings to Carthage.”
(Pliny, XXXIII. 6.)--We read in Appian: “The tribunes of the soldiers
wear the gold ring, their inferiors have it of ivory.” (_Punic Wars_,
VIII. cv.)

[515] “The Greek towns, inclined to maintain their alliance with Rome.”
(Titus Livius, XXIV. 1.)--Even in Bruttium, the small town of Petelia
defended itself against Hannibal with the greatest energy; the women
fought like the men. (Appian, VII. 29.)

[516] Eutropius, III. 6.

[517] Titus Livius, XXVI. 1.

[518] Titus Livius, XXIV. 14.

[519] “The Oppian law, proposed by the tribune C. Oppius, under the
consulship of Q. Fabius and Tiberius Sempronius (539), in the height of
the second Punic war, forbad the women to have for their use more than
half an ounce of gold, to wear dresses of different colours, &c., to be
driven or carried about Rome, within a radius of seven miles, in a
chariot drawn by horses, except to attend the public sacrifices.” This
law, being only temporary, was revoked, in spite of the opposition of P.
Cato, in 559. (Titus Livius, XXXIV. 1, 6.)

[520] Valerius Maximus, I. i. 15.

[521] “It was in his cavalry that Hannibal placed all his hopes.”
(Polybius, III. 101.)--“Hannibal’s cavalry alone caused the victories of
Carthage and the defeats of Rome.” (Polybius, IX. 3.)--“The loss of 500
Numidians was felt more by Hannibal than any other check, and from that
time he had no longer the superiority in cavalry which had previously
given him so much advantage” (543). (Titus Livius, XXVI. 38.)

[522] “Hannibal remembered how he had failed before Placentia.” (Titus
Livius, XXVII. 39.)

[523] Titus Livius, XXIII. 15 and 18.--Hannibal reduced by famine the
fortresses of Casilinum and Nuceria; as to the citadel of Tarentum, it
resisted five years, and could not be taken by force. (Titus Livius,
XXVII. 25.)

[524] “Hannibal descends towards Naples, having at heart to secure a
maritime place to receive succours from Africa.” (Titus Livius, XXIII.
15.)

[525] Polybius, III. 106.

[526] Appian, _Wars of Hannibal_, 26.

[527] Plutarch, _Marcellus_, 11, 33.

[528] Titus Livius, XXVII. 49.

[529] Appian, _Wars of Hannibal_, 54.

[530] In 536, Rome had at sea 220 quinquiremes and 20 small vessels
(Titus Livius, XXI. 17), with which she protected efficiently the coasts
of Sicily and Italy. (Titus Livius, XXI. 49, 51.)--In 537, Scipio, with
35 vessels, destroyed a Carthaginian fleet at the mouth of the Ebro
(Titus Livius, XXII. 19), and the consul Servilius Geminus effected a
landing in Africa with 120 vessels, in order to prevent Carthage from
sending reinforcements to Hannibal. (Titus Livius, XXII. 31.)--In 538,
the fleet of Sicily is reinforced with 25 ships. (Titus Livius, XXII.
37.)--In 539, Valerius Lævinus had 25 vessels to protect the coast of
the Adriatic, and Fluvius the same number to watch the coast of Ostia
(Titus Livius, XXIII. 32) after which the Adriatic fleet, raised to 55
sails, is sent to act as a check upon Macedonia. (Titus Livius, XXIII.
38.)--The same year, the fleet of Sicily, under Titus Otacilius, defeats
the Carthaginians. (Titus Livius, XXIII. 41.)--In 540 Rome has 150
vessels (Titus Livius, XXIV. 11) this year and the following, the Roman
fleet defends Apollonia, attacked by the King of Macedonia, and lands
troops which ravage the territory of Utica. The effective strength of
the Roman fleet appears not to have varied until 543, the epoch at which
Greece again required the presence of 50 Roman ships and Sicily 100.
(Titus Livius, XXVI. 1.)--In 544, 20 vessels were stationed in the
waters of Rhegium, to secure the passage of provisions between Sicily
and the garrison of Tarentum. (Titus Livius, XXVI. 39.)--In 545, 30
sails are detached from the fleet of Sicily to cruise before that town.
(Titus Livius, XXVII. 22.)--In 546, Carthage was preparing a formidable
fleet of 200 sails (Titus Livius, XXVII. 22); Rome opposes it with 280
ships: 30 defend the coast of Spain, 50 guard Sardinia, 50 the mouths of
the Tiber, 50 Macedonia, 100 are stationed in Sicily, ready to make a
descent in Africa, and the Carthaginian fleet is beaten before Clupea.
(Titus Livius, XXVII. 29.)--Lastly, in 547, a second victory gained by
Valerius Lævinus renders the sea entirely free. (Titus Livius, XXVIII.
4.)

[531] “The Carthaginians, occupied only with the care of maintaining
themselves in Spain, sent no succour to Hannibal, as though he had had
nothing but successes in Italy.” (Titus Livius, XXVIII. 12.)

[532] Titus Livius, XXIII. 13 and 41.

[533] Appian, _Wars of Hannibal_, liv.

[534] In 540, Rome had on foot eighteen legions; in 541, twenty legions;
in 542 and 543, twenty-three legions; in 544 and 546, twenty-one; in
547, twenty-three; in 551, twenty; in 552, sixteen; in 553, fourteen; in
554, the number is reduced to six. (Titus Livius, XXIV. 11-44; XXV. 3;
XXVI. 1, 28; XXVII. 22, 36; XXX. 2, 27, 41; XXXI. 8.)

[535] “The Romans raised their infantry and cavalry only in Rome and
Latium.” (Titus Livius, XXII. 37.)

[536] Titus Livius, XXIII. 23.

[537] Q. Metellus said “that the invasion of Hannibal had re-awakened
the slumbering virtue of the Roman people.” (Valerius Maximus, VII. ii.
3.)

[538] The Senate demanded of thirty colonies men and money. Eighteen
gave both with eagerness, namely, Signia, Norba, Saticulum, Brundusium,
Fregellæ, Luceria, Venusia, Adria, Firmum, Ariminum, Pontia, Pæstum,
Cosa, Beneventum, Isernia, Spoletum, Placentia, and Cremona. The twelve
colonies which refused to give any succours, pretending that they had
neither men nor money, were: Nepete, Sutrium, Ardea, Cales, Alba,
Carseoli, Cora, Suessa, Setia, Circeii, Narnia, Interamna. (Titus
Livius, XXVII. 9.)

[539] “The quarrels and struggles between the two parties ended in the
second Punic war.” (Sallust, _Fragments_, I. vii.)

[540] “Four tribes referred it to the Senate to grant the right of
suffrage to Formiæ, Fundi, and Arpinum; but they were told in reply that
to the people alone belonged the right of suffrage.” (Titus Livius,
XXXVIII. 36.)

[541] “The annual change of generals was disastrous to the Romans. They
recalled all those who had experience in war, as though they had been
sent not to fight, but only to practice.” (Zonaras, _Annales_, VIII.
16.)

[542] Titus Livius, XXII. 29.

[543] Titus Livius, XXVII. 5, 7.

[544] Titus Livius, XXXII. 28.

[545] Titus Livius, XXXI. 4, 49.

[546] Titus Livius, XXIV. 49.--Polybius, III. 75.

[547] Zonaras, _Annales_, VIII. 16.

[548] Titus Livius, XXXIX. 3.

[549] Plutarch, _Marcellus_, 28.

[550] Titus Livius, XXIII. 30.

[551] Titus Livius, XXXIV. 54.

[552] “Et equites Romanos milites et negociatores.” (Sallust,
_Jugurtha_, 65.)

[553] “In 342, a senator and two knights were charged, during a famine,
with the provisioning of Rome.” (Titus Livius, IV. 3.)

[554] _Seminarium senatus._ (Titus Livius, XLII. 61.)

[555] Titus Livius, XXIII. 49.--Valerius Maximus, V. vi. 8.

[556] Titus Livius, XXI. 63; XXV. 3.

[557] Valerius Maximus, IV. viii. 2.

[558] Valerius Maximus, IV. v. 1.

[559] They had no deliberative voice, because, according to the public
Roman law, no acting magistrate could vote. (See Mommsen, i. 187.)

[560] “Now you have still the comitia by centuries, and the comitia by
tribes. As for the comitia by curiæ, they are observed only for the
auspices.” (Cicero, _Second Oration on the Agrarian Law_, 9.)

[561] The ancient mode of division by curiæ had lost all significance
and ceased to be in use. (Ovid, _Fasti_, II. 1. 531.) So Cicero says,
speaking of them: “The comitia, which are retained only for the sake of
form, and because of the auspices, and which, represented by the thirty
lictors, are but the appearance of what was before. _Ad speciem atque
usurpationem vetustatis._” (_Oration on the Agrarian Law_, II. 12.)--In
the latter times of the Republic, the curiæ, in the election of the
magistrates, had only the inauguration of the flamens, of the king of
the sacrifices (_rex sacrificulus_), and probably the choice of the
grand curion (_curio maximus_). (Titus Livius, XXVII. 8.--Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, V. 1.--Aulus Gellius, XV. 27.--Titus Livius, XXVII. vi.
36.)

[562] “Achaia alone had twelve hundred for her share.” (Titus Livius,
XXXIV. 50.)

[563] Titus Livius, XXXIII. 32.

[564] “The allies exclaimed that the war must be continued, and the
tyrant exterminated, without which the liberty of Greece would be always
in danger. It would have been better not to have taken up arms at all
than to lay them down without having attained the end. The consul
replied, ‘If the siege of Lacedæmon retained the army a long time, what
other troops could Rome oppose to a monarch (Antiochus) so powerful and
so formidable?’” (Titus Livius, XXXIV. 33.)

[565] Titus Livius, XXXIII. 12.

[566] Titus Livius, XXXIV. 58.

[567] “Other peoples of Greece had shown in this way a no less culpable
forgetfulness of the benefits of the Roman people.” (Titus Livius,
XXXVI. 22.)

[568] Titus Livius, XXXVII. 45.

[569] Appian, _Wars of Hannibal_, 43.

[570] Titus Livius, XL. 38; XLII. 22.

[571] Roads from Arezzo to Bologna, from Placentia to Rimini (Titus
Livius, XXXIX. 2), and from Bologna to Aquileia.

[572] ROMAN COLONIES--488-608.

     _Æsulum_ (507), or Æsium, according to Mommsen, _Jesi_ in Umbria,
     on the River Æsis.

     _Alsium_ (507), a maritime colony, Etruria (_Via Aurelia_); _Palo_,
     near _Porto_.

     _Fregenæ_ (509), a maritime colony, Etruria (_Via Aurelia_); _Torre
     Maccarese_.

     _Pyrgi_ (before 536), maritime colony, Etruria (_Via Aurelia_);
     _Santa Severa_.

     _Castrum_ (555), _Pagus_, near Sylaceum; Bruttium, near
     _Squillace_; united in 631 to the colony Minerviæ.

     _Puteoli_ (560), maritime colony, Campania; _Pozzuoli_; Prefecture.

     _Vulturnum_ (560), maritime colony, Campania; _Castelamare_, or
     _Castel di Volturno_; Prefecture.

     _Liternum_ (560), maritime colony, Campania; _Tor di Patria_, near
     the _Lago di Patria_; Prefecture.

     _Salernum_ (560), maritime colony, Campania; _Salerno_; decreed
     three years before.

     _Buxentum_ (560), maritime colony, Lucania; _Policastro_.

     _Sipontum_ (560), maritime colony, Apulia; _Santa Maria di
     Siponto_; recolonised.

     _Tempsa_ (Temesa) (560), maritime colony, Bruttium; perhaps near to
     _Torre del Piano del Casale_.

     _Croton_ (560), maritime colony, Bruttium; _Cotrone_.

     _Potentia_ (570), maritime colony, Picenum; _Porto di Potenza_, or
     _di Ricanati_.

     _Pisaurum_ (570), maritime colony, Gaulish Umbria (_Via Flaminia_);
     _Pesaro_.

     _Parma_ (571), Cispadane Gaul (_Via Æmilia_); _Parma_; Prefecture.

     _Mutina_ (571), Cispadane Gaul (_Via Æmilia_); _Modena_;
     Prefecture.

     _Saturnia_ (571), Etruria (centre); _Saturnia_.

     _Graviscæ_ (573), maritime colony, Etruria (south) (_Via Aurelia_);
     _San Clementino_ or _Le Saline_ (?).

     _Luna_ (577), Etruria (north), (_Via Aurelia_); _Luni_, near
     _Sarzana_.

     _Auximum_ (597), maritime colony, Picenum; _Osimo_.

LATIN COLONIES: 488-608.

     _Firmum_ (490), Picenum (_Via Valeria_); _Fermo_.

     _Æsernia_ (491), Samnium; _Isernia_.

     _Brundisium_ (510), Iapygian Calabria (_Via Egnatia_); _Brindisi_.

     _Spoletum_ (513), Umbria (_Via Flaminia_); _Spoleto_.

     _Cremona_ (536), Transpadane Gaul; _Cremona_; reinforced in 560.

     _Placentia_ (536), Cispadane Gaul (_Via Æmilia_); _Piacenza_.

     _Copiæ_ (territory of Thurium) (561), Lucania.

     _Vibo_, or _Vibona Valentia_, called also _Hipponium_, Bruttium
     (565, or perhaps 515); _Bibona_. _Monte-Leone._

     _Bononia_ (565), Cispadane Gaul (_Via Æmilia_); _Bologna_.

     _Aquileia_ (573), Transpadane Gaul; _Aquileia_.

     _Carteia_ (573), Spain; St. Roque, in the Bay of Gibraltar.


[573] Titus Livius, XXXIX. 26.

[574] Titus Livius, XLI. 19.

[575] Titus Livius, XLI. 22.

[576] Titus Livius, XLII. 62.

[577] Titus Livius, XLI. 5.

[578] Titus Livius, XLV. 21 _et seq._

[579] Titus Livius, XLV. 29.

[580] Titus Livius, XLV. 26.

[581] Titus Livius, XLV. 18.--“The laws given to the Macedonians by
Paulus Æmilius were so wisely framed, that they seemed to have been made
not for vanquished enemies, but for allies whose services it was desired
to reward; and in which, after a long course of years, use, the sole
reformer of laws, showed nothing defective.” (Titus Livius, XLV. 32.)

[582] Polybius, XXX. 10; XXXV. 6.

[583] Titus Livius, XLII. 24.--We see by the following passage in Livy
that Masinissa feared the justice of the Senate as against his own
interest: “If Perseus had had the advantage, and if _Carthage had been
deprived of the Roman protection_, nothing would then have hindered
Masinissa from conquering all Africa.” (Titus Livius, XLII. 29.)

[584] Titus Livius, XLV. 13.

[585] Titus Livius, XLV. 42.

[586] Titus Livius, XLV. 44.

[587] Titus Livius, XXXVIII. 45.

[588] Titus Livius, XLI. 7.

[589] Titus Livius, XLIII. 1.

[590] Titus Livius, XXXIX. 3.

[591] “It was commonly said that the masters of the Spanish provinces
themselves opposed the prosecution of noble and powerful persons.”
(Titus Livius, XLIII. 2.)

[592] Valerius Maximus, VI. ix. 10.

[593] Montesquieu, _Grandeur et Décadence des Romains_, ix. 66.

[594] Scipio reproves the people, who wished to make him perpetual
consul and dictator. (Titus Livius, XXXVIII. 56.)

[595] Cato used interpreters in speaking to the Athenians, though he
understood Greek perfectly. (Plutarch, _Cato the Censor_, 18.)--It was
an old habit of the Romans, indeed, to address strangers only in Latin.
(Valerius Maximus, II. ii. 2.)

[596] Plutarch, _Cato the Censor_, 8, 25.

[597] Titus Livius, _Epitome_, XLVIII.--Valerius Maximus, IV. i. 10.

[598] Plutarch, _Cato the Censor_, 34.--Aulus Gellius, VI. 14.

[599] Titus Livius, _Epitome_, XLIX.

[600] “Cato barked without ceasing at the greatness of Scipio.” (Titus
Livius, XXXVIII. 54.)

[601] “P. Cato had a bitter mind, a sharp and unmeasured tongue.” (Titus
Livius, XXXIX. 40.)

[602] “He declaimed against usurers, and he himself lent out, at high
interest, the money which he got from his estates. He condemned the sale
of young slaves, yet trafficked in the same under an assumed name.”
(Plutarch, _Cato the Censor_, 33.)

[603] Drumann, _Geschichte Roms_, v., p. 148.

[604] “The last act of his political life was to cause the ruin of
Carthage to be determined on.” (Plutarch, _Cato the Censor_, 39.)

[605] Titus Livius, _Epitome_, XLVIII.

[606] At Carthage, the multitude governed; at Rome, the power of the
Senate was absolute. (Polybius, VI. 51.)

[607] Titus Livius, L. 16.

[608] Appian, _Punic Wars_, 93 _et seq._

[609] Justin, XXXIV. 1.--Titus Livius, _Epitome_, LI.--Polybius, I. 2,
3.

[610] Pausanias, VII. 16.--Justin, XXXIV. 2.

[611] Polybius, XL. 11.

[612] Appian, _Wars of Spain_, 52.

[613] Eutropius, IV. 7.

[614] The town of Garray, in Spain, situated about a league from Soria,
on the Duero, is built on the site of ancient Numantia. (Miñano,
_Diccionario Geográfico de España_.)

[615] Appian, _Civil Wars_, V. iv. 38.

[616] Velleius Paterculus, II. 20.

[617] Titus Livius, XXXIV. 31.

[618] Titus Livius, XLV. 21.

[619] Titus Livius, VII. 43.

[620] In 555, 585, and 639. (Titus Livius, XLV. 15.)--Aurelius Victor,
_Illustrious Men_, lxii.

[621] The tribune Licinius Crassus proposed, in 609, to transfer to the
people the election of the pontiffs, until then nominated by the
sacerdotal college. This proposition was adopted only in 650 by the law
Domitia, and was anew abolished by Sylla.

[622] Titus Livius, _Epitome_, LVII.

[623] The expedition against the Scordisci, in 619.

[624] Sallust, _Fragm._, I. 8.

[625] “Corruption especially had increased, because, Macedonia
destroyed, the empire of the world seemed thenceforth assured to Rome.”
(Polybius, XI. 32.)

[626] Sallust, _Fragm._, I. 10.

[627] The Romans expatriated themselves to such a degree that, when
Mithridates began war, and caused all the Roman citizens spread over his
states to be massacred in one day, they amounted to 150,000, according
to Plutarch (_Sylla_, xlviii.); 80,000 according to Memnon (in the
_Bibliotheca_ of Photius, Codex CCXXIV. 31) and Valerius Maximus (IX. 2,
§ 3).--The small town of Cirta, in Africa, could only be defended
against Jugurtha by Italiotes. (Sallust, _Jugurtha_, 26.)

[628] Sallust, _Jugurtha_, 35.

[629] “And Rome refused to admit in the number of her citizens the men
by whom she had acquired that greatness of which she was so proud as to
despise the peoples of the same blood and of the same origin.” (Velleius
Paterculus, II. 15).

[630] See the list of Censuses at Note (^4) of page 256.

[631] Mommsen, _Geschichte Roms_, I., p. 785.

[632] The lands taken from the town of Leontium were of the extent of
thirty thousand _jugera_. They were, in 542, farmed out by the censors;
but at the end of some time, there remained only one citizen of the
country among the eighty-four farmers who had installed themselves in
them; all the others belonged to the Roman nobility. (Mommsen, ii.
75.--Cicero, _Second Prosecution of Verres_, III. 46 _et seq._)

[633] Plutarch, _Tiberius Gracchus_, 9.

[634] Diodorus Siculus, _Fragments_, XXXIV. 3.

[635] Diodorus Siculus, _Fragments_, XXXVI., p. 147, ed. Schweighæuser.

[636] Strabo, XIV. v. 570.

[637] “Our ancestors feared always the spirit of slavery, even in the
case where, born in the field and under the roof of his master, the
slave learnt to love him from his birth. But since we count ours by
nations, each of which has its manners and gods, or perhaps has no gods,
no, this vile and confused assemblage will never be kept under but by
fear.” (Tacitus, _Annales_, XIV. 44.)

[638] In 442, the censor Appius Claudius Cæcus causes the freedmen to be
inscribed in all the tribes, and allows their sons the entrance to the
Senate. (Diodorus Siculus, XX. 36.)--In 450 the censor Q. Fabius
Rullianus (Maximus) confines them to the four urban tribes (Titus
Livius, IX. 46); towards 530, other censors opened again all the tribes
to them; in 534, the censors L. Æmilius Papus and C. Flaminius
re-established the order of 450 (Titus Livius, _Epitome_, XX.); an
exception is made in favour of those who have a son of the age of more
than five years, or who possess lands of the value of more than 30,000
sestertii (XLV. 15); in 585, the censor Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus
expels them from the rustic tribes, where they had been again
introduced, and unites them in one sole urban tribe, the Esquiline.
(Titus Livius, XLV. 15.--Cicero, _De Oratore_, I. ix. 38.)--(639.) “The
Æmilian law permits freedmen to vote in the four urban tribes.”
(Aurelius Victor, _Illustrious Men_, 72.)

[639] Valerius Maximus, VI. 2, § 3.--Velleius Paterculus, II. 4.

[640] “I know Romans who have waited for their elevation to the
consulship to begin reading the history of our ancestors and the
precepts of the Greeks on military art.” (_Speech of Marius_, Sallust,
_Jugurtha_, 85.)

[641] Plutarch, _Tiberius Gracchus_, 8.

[642] “Tiberius Gracchus genere, forma, eloquentia facile princeps.”
(Florus, III. 14.)

[643] Velleius Paterculus, II. 2.--Seneca the Philosopher, _De
Consolatione, ad Marciam_, xvi.

[644] Plutarch, _Parallel between Agis and Tiberius Gracchus_, iv.

[645] “Pure and just in his views.” (Velleius Paterculus, II.
2.)--“Animated by the noblest ambition.” (Appian, _Civil Wars_, I. 9.)

[646] Plutarch, _Tib. Gracchus_, 9.

[647] “It was at the instigation of the rhetorician Diophanes and the
philosopher Blossius that he took counsel of the citizens of Rome most
distinguished for their reputation and virtues: among others, Crassus,
the grand pontiff; Mucius Scævola, the celebrated lawyer, then consul;
and Appius Claudius, his father-in-law.” (Plutarch, _Tib. Gracchus_, 9.)

[648] Plutarch, _Tib. Gracchus_, 9.

[649] Aulus Gellius relates two passages from the speech of C. Gracchus,
which we think ought rather to be ascribed to Tib. Sempronius Gracchus.
In one, he has stated the case of a young noble who caused a peasant to
be murdered because he made a joke upon him as he passed in a litter; in
the other, he told the story of a consul who ordered the most
considerable men in the town of Teanum to be beaten with rods, because
the consul’s wife, going to bathe, had found the baths of the town not
clean. (Aulus Gellius, X. 3.)

[650] Appian, _Civil Wars_, I. 12.

[651] Plutarch, _Tib. Gracchus_, 16.

[652] Appian, _Civil Wars_, I. 13.

[653] Plutarch, _Tib. Gracchus_, 12.

[654] Machiavelli, _Discourse on Titus Livius_, I. 37.

[655] Plutarch, _Tib. Gracchus_, 16.

[656] Appian, _Civil Wars_, I. 14.

[657] Plutarch, _Tib. Gracchus_, 16, 22.

[658] Plutarch, _C. Gracchus_, 5.

[659] They interdicted to the magistrates deposed by the people the
exercise of all functions, and authorised criminal proceedings against
the magistrate who had been the author of the illegal banishment of a
citizen. The first of these struck openly at Octavius, whom Tiberius had
deposed; the second at Popilius, who, in his prætorship, had banished
the friends of Tiberius. (Plutarch, _C. Gracchus_, 8.)

[660] Appian, _Civil Wars_, I. 21.

[661] “In 556, the curule ediles Fulvius Nobilior and Flaminius
distributed to the people a million of _modii_ of Sicilian wheat, at two
_ases_ the bushel.” (Titus Livius, XXXIII. 42.)

[662] Appian, _Civil Wars_, I. 21.--Cicero, _Tusculan Disputations_,
III. 20.

[663] Plutarch, _C. Gracchus_, 7. According to what Polybius says, the
period of service was fixed at ten years, for we read in Plutarch:
“Caius Gracchus said to the censors that, obliged only by the law to ten
campaigns, he had made twelve.” (Plutarch, _C. Gracchus_, 4.)

[664] FIFTH PERIOD.--ROMAN COLONIES.

_Dertona_ (630). In Liguria, now _Tortona_.

_Fabrateria_ (630). Among the Volsci (_Latium Majus_). Now _Falvaterra_.
A colony of the Gracchi.

_Aquæ Sextiæ_ (631); _Aix_ (Mouths of the Rhone). Cited erroneously as a
colony, was only a _castellum_.

_Minervia_ (Scylacium) (632). In Calabria, now _Squillace_. A colony of
the Gracchi.

_Neptunia_ (Tarentum) (632). In Calabria, now _Taranto_. A colony of
the Gracchi.

_Carthago_ (Junonia). In Africa. A colony of the Gracchi, was only commenced.

_Narbo Martius_ (636). In Narbonnese Gaul, now _Narbonne_. Founded
under the influence of the Gracchi.

_Eporedia_ (654). In Transpadane Gaul, now _Ivrea_.

In this period Rome ceases to found Latin colonies. The allied countries
and the towns of the Latin name began to demand the right of city; the
assimilation of Italy, in respect to language and manners, is indeed so
advanced that it is superfluous, if not dangerous, to found new Latin
cities.

The name of _Colonies of the Gracchi_ is given to those which were
established essentially for the aid of the poor citizens, and no longer,
as formerly, with a strategic view.

Carthage and Narbonne are the first two colonies founded beyond the
limits of Italy, contrary to the rule previously followed. The only
example which could be mentioned as appertaining to the previous period
is that of _Italica_, founded in Spain by Scipio in 548, for those of
his veterans who wished to remain in the country. They received the
right of city, but not the title of colony. The inhabitants of _Aquæ
Sextiæ_ must have been in much the same situation.

[665] Velleius Paterculus, II. 6, 15.--Plutarch, _C. Gracchus_, 7, 8.

[666] Appian, _Civil Wars_, I. 19 _et seq._

[667] Plutarch, _C. Gracchus_, 9.--Appian, _Civil Wars_, I. 23.

[668] Sallust, _Jugurtha_, 27.--Cicero, _Oration on the Consular
Provinces_, 2, 15; _Oration for Balbus_, 27.

[669] Cicero, _Oration for Rabirius_, 4.

[670] Plutarch, _C. Gracchus_, 7, 12.--According to Velleius Paterculus
(II. 6), “he would have extended this right to all the peoples of Italy
as far as the Alps.”

[671] Pseudo-Sallust, _First Letter to Cæsar_, vii.--Titus Livius, XXVI.
22.

[672] “Aut censoria locatio constituta est, ut Asiæ, lege Sempronia.”
Cicero, _Second Prosecution of Verres_, III.--See, on this question,
Mommsen, _Inscriptiones Latinæ Antiquissimæ_, pp. 100, 101.

[673] In the province, the domain of the soil belongs to the Roman
people; the proprietor is reputed to have only the possession or
usufruct. (Gaius, _Institutes_, II. 7.)

[674] The senators were reproached with the recent examples of
prevarication given by Cornelius Cotta, by Salinator, and by Manius
Aquilius, the conqueror of Asia.

[675] Yet the _Epitome_ of Titus Livius (LX.) speaks of 600 knights
instead of 300. (See Pliny, _Natural History_, XXXIII. 7.--Appian,
_Civil Wars_, I. 22.--Plutarch, _C. Gracchus_, 7.)

[676] Plutarch, _C. Gracchus_, 12.

[677] Appian, _Civil Wars_, I. 24.

[678] Appian, _Civil Wars_, I. 17.

[679] “I am not one of those consuls who think that it is a crime to
praise in the Gracchi, as magistrates whose counsels, wisdom, and laws
carried a salutary reform into many parts of the administration.”
(Cicero, _Second Speech on the Agrarian Law_, 5.)

[680] Appian, _Civil Wars_, I. 27.

[681] Sallust, _Jugurtha_, 31.

[682] Sallust, _Jugurtha_, 5.

[683] “Marius had only made his temper more unyielding.” (Plutarch,
_Sylla_, 39.)--“Talent, probity, simplicity, profound knowledge of the
art of war, Marius joined to the same degree the contempt of riches and
pleasures with the love of glory.” (Sallust, _Jugurtha_, 63.)--Marius
was born on the territory of Arpinum, at _Cereatæ_, now Casamari (the
house of Marius).

[684] “Obtained the esteem of both parties.” (Plutarch, _Marius_, 4.)

[685] Sallust, _Jugurtha_, 85.

[686] Plutarch, _Marius_, 10.

[687] Plutarch, _Marius_, 19.

[688] Plutarch, _Marius_, 11.

[689] Plutarch, _Marius_, 28.

[690] Plutarch, _Marius_, 29.

[691] Titus Livius, XXIII. 22.

[692] In our opinion, _bellum sociale_, or _sociorum_, has been wrongly
translated by “social war,” an expression which gives a meaning entirely
contrary to the nature of this war.

[693] Velleius Paterculus, II. 15.

[694] LIST OF THE DIFFERENT CENSUSES:--

 Year of
 Rome      Census
 187.   80,000. The first census under Servius Tullius. (Titus Livius, I. 44.
                 --Dionysius of Halicarnassus, IV. 22.--Eutropius, I. 7.)

 245.   130,000. (Plutarch, _Publicola_, 14.)

 278.   110,000. (Upwards of). (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, IX. 25.)--119,309
                   according to Eutropius, I. 14; and 120,000 according
                   to G. Syncellus, 452, ed. Bonn.

 280.   190,000. (Rather more than). (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, IX. 36.)

 (Towards
 286).    8,714. (_sic._) (Titus Livius,
                          _Epitome_, III., ed. O. Jahn.) Correct it
                           to 118,714.

 295.   117,319. (Titus Livius, III. 24.)--117,219 according
                  to the _Epitome_.

 331.   120,000. (Canon of Eusebius, Olympiad lxxxix. 2; 115,000 according
                   to another manuscript.) This passage is wanting in the
                   Armenian translation.

 365.   152,573. (Pliny, _Natural History_, XXXIII. 16, ed. Sillig.)

 415.   165,000. (Eusebius, Olymp. cx. 1.)

 422}            (Titus Livius, IX. 19.--G. Syncellus, _Chronographia_,
 to }   250,000.    525, has the number 260,000.)
 435}

 460.   262,321. (Titus Livius, X. 47; the _Epitome_, 272,320.--Eusebius,
                   Olymp. cxxi. 4, writes 270,000; the Armenian translator,
                   220,000.)

 465.   272,000. (Titus Livius, _Epitome_, XI.)

 474.   287,222. (Titus Livius, _Epitome_, XIII.)

 479.   292,334. (Eutropius, II. 10.)--271,234 according to Titus Livius
                  (_Epitome_, XIV.).

 489.   382,234. (Titus Livius, _Epitome_, XVI.) Correct it to 282,234.

 502.   297,797. (Titus Livius, _Epitome_, XVIII.)

 507.   241,212. (Titus Livius, _Epitome_, XIX.)

 513.   260,000. (Eusebius, Olymp. cxxxiv. 4.)

 534.   270,213. (Titus Livius, _Epitome_, XX.)

 546.   137,108. (Titus Livius, XXII. 36.)--This enormous difference is wrongly
                 ascribed to the losses experienced in the first five years
                 of the Second Punic war, and Titus Livius states but a very
                 small difference, _minor aliquanto numerus quam qui ante
                 bellum fuerat_, which would give us cause to believe in
                 an error of the copyist in the number of the census,
                 so that we should read 237,108.

 550.   214,000. (Titus Livius, XXIX. 37; _Fasti Capitolini_.)--The censors, as
                 is formally stated, had extended their operations to the
                 armies; in addition to which, many allies and Latins had
                 come to take their domicile in Rome, and had been included
                 in the census.

 561.   143,704. (Titus Livius, XXXV. 9.) Here, also, there doubtless exists
                 an error; we must read 243,704. Perhaps, too, the censors
                 did not include in that number of citizens the soldiers
                 in campaign.

 566.   258,318. (Titus Livius, XXXVIII. 36); _Epitome_, 258,310. Many allies
                  of the Latin name had been included in the census.

 576.   288,294. (Titus Livius, _Epitome_, XLI.) The figures of the census of
                  preceding and following years lead us to adopt this number,
                  though the manuscripts give only 258,294.

 581.   269,015. (Titus Livius, XLII. 10); _Epitome_, 267,231. “The reason
                of the inferiority of the census of 581 was,” according to
                Titus Livius, “the edict of the Consul Postumius, in virtue
                of which those who belonged to the class of the Latin allies
                were to return, to be taken for their censuses, in their
                respective towns, according to the edict of the Consul
                C. Claudius, so that there was not a single person of
                the allies who was taken at Rome.” (Titus Livius, XLII. 10.)

 586.   312,805. (Titus Livius, _Epitome_, XLV.)

 591.   337,022. (Titus Livius, _Epitome_, XLVI.)

 595.   328,316. (Titus Livius, _Epitome_, XLVII.)

 600.   324,000. (Titus Livius, _Epitome_, XLVIII.)

 608.   334,000. (Eusebius, Olymp. clviii. 3.)

 613.   327,442. (Titus Livius, _Epitome_, LIV.)

 618.   317,933. (Titus Livius, _Epitome_, LVI.)

 623.   318,823. (Titus Livius, _Epitome_, LIX.)

 629.   394,726. (Titus Livius, _Epitome_, LX.)

 639.   394,336. (Titus Livius, _Epitome_, LXIII.)

 667.   463,000. (Eusebius, Olymp. clxxiv. 1.)

 684.   900,000. (Titus Livius, _Epitome_, XCVIII.)--Dio Cassius (XLIII. 25)
              relates that the census ordered by Cæsar after the civil
              war had presented a frightful diminution of the number of
              the population (δεινἡ ὁλιγανθροπἱα). Appian (II. 102) says
              that this number had only reached about the half of the
              previous census. According to Plutarch (_Cæsar_, 55), upon
              320,000 citizens counted before the war, Cæsar had only
              found 150,000. They confounded the registers of the distribution
              of wheat with the lists of the census. (See Suetonius,
              _Cæsar_, 41.)

 Augustus says expressly that between the years 684 and
 726 there was no census taken, _post annum alterum et quadragesimum_.
 (_Monument of Ancyra_, tab. 2.)--The number
 of citizens whom he found at that epoch, 4,063,000, is
 about that which Cæsar might have declared. (Photius,
 _Biblioth._, cod. xcvii.--_Fragm. Histor._, ed. Müller, III. 606.)

 726. 4,063,000. Closing of the lustrum by Augustus on his sixth consulship,
                 with M. Agrippa for his colleague. (_Monument of Ancyra._)

 746. 4,233,000. Second closure of the lustrum by Augustus alone. (_Monument
                 of Ancyra_.)

 767. 4,037,000. According to the _Monument of Ancyra_; 9,300,000 according
                 to the _Chronicle of Eusebius_; third closure of the lustrum
                 by Augustus and Tiberius Cæsar, his colleague, under
                 the consulate of Sex. Pompeius and Sex. Appuleius.



[695] These two words are found on the Italiote medals struck during the
war. A denarius in the Bibliothèque Impériale presents the legend ITALIA
in Latin characters, and, on the reverse, the name of Papius Mutilus in
Oscan characters: [Illustration Oscan symbols], _Gai_, PAAPI + G (_ai
fili_).

[696] This measure satisfied the Etruscans. (Appian, _Civil Wars_, I.
49.)

[697] Velleius Paterculus, II. 20.--Appian, _Civil Wars_, I. 49.

[698] See Note (^1) to page 226.

[699] “P. Sulpicius had sought by his rectitude the popular esteem: his
eloquence, his activity, his mental superiority, and his fortune, made
of him a remarkable man.” (Velleius Paterculus, II. 18.)

[700] Plutarch, _Marius_, 36.

[701] Plutarch, _Sylla_, 11.

[702] Appian, _Civil Wars_, I. 57.

[703] Appian, _Civil Wars_, I. 59. “Populus Romanus, Lucio Sylla
dictatore ferente, comitiis centuriatis, municipiis civitatem ademit.”
(Cicero, _Speech for his House_, 30.)

[704] “In conferring upon the peoples of Italy the right of Roman city,
they had been distributed into eight tribes, in order that the strength
and number of these new citizens might not encroach upon the dignity of
the old ones, and that men admitted to this favour might not become more
powerful than those who had given it to them. But Cinna, following in
the steps of Marius and Sulpicius, announced that he should distribute
them in all the tribes; and, on this promise, they arrived in crowds
from all parts of Italy.” (Velleius Paterculus, II. 20.)

[705] Velleius Paterculus, II. 20.

[706] Plutarch, _Pompeius_, 3.

[707] Plutarch, _Sertorius_, 5.

[708] “Cinna counted on that great multitude of new Romans, who
furnished him with more than three hundred cohorts, divided into thirty
legions. To give the necessary credit and authority to his faction, he
recalled the two Marii and the other exiles.” (Velleius Paterculus, II.
20.)

[709] _Quod parcius telum recepisset._ This expression appears to be
borrowed from the combats of gladiators, which derived their origin from
similar human sacrifices performed at the funerals. (See Cicero, _Speech
for Roscius Amerinus_, 12.--Valerius Maximus, IX. xi. 2.)

[710] Plutarch, _Sylla_, 6.

[711] Appian, _Civil Wars_, I. 77.

[712] Appian, _Civil Wars_, I. 79.

[713] Appian, _Civil Wars_, I. 95.

[714] Velleius Paterculus, II. 27. The Samnites thus designated the
Romans, in allusion to the wolf, the nurse of the founder of Rome. A
Samnite medal represents the bull, the symbol of Italy, throwing the
wolf to the ground. It bears the name of C. Papius Mutilus, with the
title _Embratur_, [Illustration: symbols], an Oscan word corresponding
to the Latin _imperator_.

[715] “Thus terminated two most disastrous wars: the _Italic_, called
also the _Social War_, and the _Civil War_; they had lasted together ten
years; they had mown down more than a hundred and fifty thousand men, of
whom twenty-four had been consuls, seven prætors, sixty ediles, and
nearly two hundred senators.” (Eutropius, V. 6.)

[716] “Sylla fomented these disorders by loading his troops with
largesses and profusions without bounds, in order to corrupt and draw to
him the soldiers of the opposite parties.” (Plutarch, _Sylla_, 16.)

[717] Dio Cassius (XXXIV. cxxxvi. § 1) gives the number as 8,000; Appian
as 3,000. Valerius Maximus speaks of three legions (IX. 2, § 1).

[718] “A great number of allies and Latins were deprived by one man of
the right of city, which had been given to them for their numerous and
honourable services.” (_Speech of Lepidus_, Sallust, _Fragm._, I.
5.)--“We have seen the Roman people, at the proposal of the dictator
Sylla, take, in the comitia of centuries, the right of city from several
municipal towns; we have seen it also depriving them of the lands they
possessed.... As to the right of city, the interdiction did not last
even so long as the military despotism of the dictator.” (Cicero,
_Speech for his House_, 30.)

[719] Appian, _Civil Wars_, I. 95.--Velleius Paterculus, II. 28.

[720] Appian, _Civil Wars_, I. 95.

[721] Strabo, V. iv. 207.

[722] Dio Cassius, XXXIV. 137, § 1.

[723] Dio Cassius, XXXIV. 137.

[724] Valerius Maximus, IX. ii. 1.

[725] Plutarch, _Cato of Utica_, 21.

[726] Appian, _Civil Wars_, I. 96.--Titus Livius, _Epitome_, LXXXIX.

[727] Appian, I. 100.--Velleius Paterculus, II. 31.--The _auxilium_ was
the protection accorded by the tribune of the people to whoever claimed
it.

[728] Appian, _Civil Wars_, I. 100 _et seq._

[729] Appian, _Civil Wars_, I. (See, on an inscription raised by the
freedmen in honour of the dictator, and which has been discovered in
Italy, Mommsen, _Inscriptiones Latinæ Antiquissimæ_, p. 168.)

[730] Titus Livius, _Epitome_, LXXXIX.

[731] Appian, _Civil Wars_, I. 100.

[732] Appian, _Civil Wars_, I. 100.--In 574, the age required for the
different magistracies had already been fixed. (Titus Livius, XL. 44.)

[733] Appian, _Civil Wars_, I. 101.--Titus Livius, _Epitome_, LXXXIX.

[734] Aulus Gellius, II. 24.

[735] Cicero, _Familiar Letters_, III. 6, 8, 10.

[736] Titus Livius, _Epitome_, LXXXIX.--Tacitus, _Annals_, XI.
22.--Aurelius Victor, _Illustrious Men_, lxxv.

[737] Cicero, _De Oratore_, II. 39.--“A law which, among the ancients,
embraced different objects: treasons in the army, seditions at Rome,
diminution of the majesty of the Roman people by the bad administration
of a magistrate.” (Tacitus, _Annals_, I. 72.)

[738] Appian, _Civil Wars_, I. 104.

[739] He waited the death of the dictator to rob the treasury of a sum
which he owed to the State. (Plutarch, _Sylla_, 46.)

[740] Appian, _Civil Wars_, I. 106.

[741] Sylla had taken the name of _Fortunate_ (_Felix_). (Mommsen,
_Inscriptiones Latinæ Antiquissimæ_, p. 168), or of _Faustus_, according
to Velleius Paterculus.

[742] “It cannot be denied that Sylla had then the power of a king,
although he had restored the Republic.” (Cicero, _Speech on the Report
of the Aruspices_, 25.)

[743] The celebrated German author, Mommsen (_Roman History_, III. 15),
does not admit this date of 654. He proposes, under correction, the date
of 652, for the reason that the ages required for the higher offices of
State, since Sylla’s time, were thirty-seven for the edileship, forty
for the prætorship, forty-three for the consulship, and as Cæsar was
_curule ædile_ in 689, prætor in 692, consul in 695, he would, had he
been born in 654, have filled each of these offices two years before the
legal age.

This objection, certainly of some force, is dispelled by other
historical testimony. Besides, we know that at Rome they did not always
observe the laws when dealing with eminent men. Lucullus was raised to
be chief magistrate before the required age, and Pompey was consul at
thirty-four. (Appian, _Civil Wars_, I. 14.)--Tacitus speaks on this
matter thus: “With our ancestors this magistracy (the questorship) was
the prize of merit only, for every citizen of ability had then the right
to aim at these honours; _even age was so little regarded, that extreme
youth did not exclude from either the consulship or the dictatorship_.”
(_Annals_, XI. 22.)--In any case, if the opinion of M. Mommsen be
adopted, the birth of Cæsar must be referred to 651, not 652. For, if he
was born in the month of July, 652, he could only be forty-three years
of age in the month of July, 695; and as the nomination of the consuls
preceded by six months their entering into office, it would be in the
month of July, 694, when he would have attained the legal age, which
would bring the date of his birth to the year 651. But Plutarch
(_Cæsar_, 69), Suetonius (_Cæsar_, 88), and Appian (_Civil Wars_, II.
149) all agree in saying that Cæsar was fifty-six when he was
assassinated on the 15th of March, 710, which fixes his birth in the
year 654. On the other hand, according to Velleius Paterculus (II. 43),
Cæsar was appointed flamen of Jupiter by Marius and Cinna when scarcely
out of infancy, and at Rome infancy ended at about fourteen; and the
consulship of Marius and Cinna being in 668, Cæsar, according to our
calculation, would then, in fact, have entered on his fourteenth year.
The same author adds that he was about eighteen in 672, when he left
Rome to escape the proscriptions of Sylla, a new reason for retaining
the preceding date.

Cæsar made his first campaign in Asia, at the taking of Mitylene, in 674
(Titus Livius, _Epitome_, LXXXIX.), which makes him twenty at the date
of his entrance into the service. According to Sallust (_Catilina_, 49),
when Cæsar was nominated grand pontiff in competition with Catulus, he
was almost a youth (_adolescentulus_); and Dio Cassius says the same, in
nearly the same terms. Doubtless they expressed themselves thus because
of the great disproportion in the age of the two candidates. The
expression of these authors, although unfitting, nevertheless agrees
better with our reckoning, which ascribes thirty-seven years of age to
Cæsar, than to the other, which gives him thirty-nine. Tacitus also, as
we shall see in a note to a subsequent page, when speaking of the
accusation against Dolabella, tends to make Cæsar too young rather than
too old.

[744] The family of the _Julii_ was very ancient, and we find personages
bearing this name from the third century of Rome. The first of whom
history makes mention was C. Julius Julus, consul in 265. There were
other consuls of the same family in 272, 281, 307, 324; consular
tribunes in 330, 351, 362, 367; and a dictator, C. Julius Julus, in 402;
but their filiation is little known. The genealogy of Cæsar begins in a
direct line only from Sextus Julius Cæsar, prætor in 546. We borrow the
genealogy of the family of the Julii from the _History of Rome by
Families_, by the learned professor W. Drumann (Vol. III., page 120;
Kœnigsberg, 1837), introducing one variation only, explained in Note (4)
of page 290.

  Sex. Jul. Cæsar,   L. Jul. Cæsar.
   prætor, 546.           |
                          |
        +-------------------------------+
        |                               |
  L. Jul. Cæsar,                Sex. Jul. Cæsar,
  prætor, 571.                  trib. mil., 573.
                                        |
                       +-------------------------------+
                       |                               |
  L. J. Cæsar,   Sex. J. Cæsar,                   C. Jul. Cæsar.
  prætor, 588.    Cos., 597.                           |
                       |                               |
            +----------------+                         |
            |                |                         |
      Sex. J. Cæsar,     L. J. Cæsar.             C. Jul. Cæsar.
      prætor, 631.       --Popillia.                 Marcia.
                             |                         |
                +----------------+                +----------------------------------+
                |                |                |             |                    |
         L. Jul. Cæsar,    C. Jul. Cæsar.    C. Jul. Cæsar,   Julia.           Sex. Jul. Cæsar,
         Cos., 664.            Strabo.          prætor.     --C. Marius          Cos., 663.
           Censor.         ædil. cur., 664.   --Aurelia.                             |
         --Fulvia.                                |                                  |
              |                                   |                                  |
        +-------------+                +------------------------------+              |
        |             |                |              |               |              |
  L. Jul. Cæsar,    Julia.      C. JUL. CÆSAR,  Julia, maj.      Julia, min.   Sex. Jul. Cæsar,
     Cos., 690.  --M. Antonius.     Dictator.     --L. Pinarius.  M. A. Balbus.   flam. Quirin.
        |        --P. Lentulus.   --Cornelia.--+  --Q. Pedius.        |              |
        |                                      |                      |              |
        |                                      |                      |              |
  L. Jul. Cæsar.                             Julia                  Atia        Sex. Julius Cæsar.
     --708.                               --Cn. Pomp. Mag.  (moth. of Augustus).    --708.
                                               |
                                               |
                                        --Cn. Pompeius.
                                     --Pompeia.
                                     --Calpurnia.

The opinion most accredited with the ancients, on the origin of the name
of Cæsar, was that Julius slew an elephant in a fight. In the Punic
tongue _cæsar_ signifies “an elephant.” The medals of Cæsar, as grand
pontiff, confirm this hypothesis; on the reverse is an elephant crushing
a serpent beneath its feet. (Cohen, _Consular Medals_, plate xx.
10.)--We know that some symbols on the Roman medals are a species of
canting heraldry. Pliny gives another etymology of the name of Cæsar:
“Primusque Cæsarum a cæso matris utero dictus, qua de causa et _Cæsones_
appellati.” (_Natural History_, VII. 9.)--Festus (p. 57) thus expresses
himself: “_Cæsar_ a _cæsarie_ dictus est; qui scilicet cum cæsarie natus
est;” and page 45: “_Cæsariati_ (comati).”--Finally, Spartianus (_Life
of Ælius Verus_, ii.) sums up in these words the greater part of the
etymologies: “_Cæsorem_ vel ab elephante (qui lingua Mauroram _cæsar_
dicitur) in prœlio cæso, cum qui primus sic appellatus est, doctissimi
et eruditissimi viri putant dictum; vel quia mortua matre, ventre cæso
sit natus; vel quod cum magnis crinibus sit utero parentis effusus; vel
quod oculis cæsiis et ultra humanum morem viguerit.” (See Isidore,
_Origines_, IX. iii. 12.--Servius, _Commentary on the Æneid_, I. 290,
and Constantine Manasses, p. 71.)

[745] Pliny, _Natural History_, VII. 53.--“Cæsar was in his sixteenth
year when he lost his father.” (Suetonius, I.)

[746] “He sprang from the noble family of the _Julii_, and, according to
an opinion long believed in, he derived his origin from Venus and
Anchises.” (Velleius Paterculus, II. 41.)

[747] In fact, the _gens_ Marcia, one of the most illustrious patrician
families in Rome, reckoned among its ancestors Numa Marcius, who married
Pompilia, the daughter of Numa Pompilius, by whom he had Ancus Marcius,
who was King of Rome after the death of Tullus Hostilius. (Plutarch,
_Coriolanus_, I; _Numa_, 26.)

[748] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, vi. This passage, as generally translated, is
unintelligible, because the translators render the words Martii Reges by
_the Kings Martius_, instead of the family of Marcius Rex.

[749] Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 10.

[750] “So Cornelia, mother of the Gracchi; Aurelia, mother of Cæsar;
Atia, mother of Augustus, all presided over the education of their
children, we are told, and made them into great men.” (Tacitus,
_Dialogue concerning Orators_, 28.)

[751] “Ingenii magni, memoriæ singularis, nec minus Græce quam Latine
doctus.” (Suetonius, _On Illustrious Grammarians_, 7.)

[752] “A sermone Græco puerum incipere malo.” (Quintilian, _Institution
of Oratory_, I. i.)

[753] Claudius, addressing a foreigner who spoke Greek and Latin, said,
“Since thou possessest our two languages.” (Suetonius, _Claudius_, 42.)

[754] Καἱ σὑ, τἑκνον! (Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 82.)

[755] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 56.

[756] “Still quite young, he seems to have attached himself to the kind
of eloquence adopted by Strabo Cæsar, and he has even given, in his
_Divination_, several passages, word for word, of the discourse of this
orator for the Sardinians.” (Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 55.)

[757] Aulus Gellius, IV. 16.

[758] “For Cæsar and Brutus have also made verses, and have placed them
in the public libraries. Poets as feeble as Cicero, but happier than he,
in that fewer people knew what they had done.” (Tacitus, _Dialogue
concerning Orators_, 21.)

[759]

    Tu quoque, tu in summis, o dimidiate Menander,
    Poneris, et merito, puri sermonis amator.
    Lenibus atque utinam scriptis adjuncta foret vis
    Comica, ut æquato virtus polleret honore
    Cum Græcis; neque in hac despectus parte jaceres!
    Unum hoc maceror et doleo tibi deesse, Terenti.
           (Suetonius, _Life of Terence_, 5.)



[760] “Liberal to prodigality, and of a courage above human nature and
even imagination.” (Velleius Paterculus, II. 41.)

[761] “He held, undeniably, the second rank among the orators of Rome.”
(Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 3.)

[762] “Nam cui Hortensio, Lucullove, _vel Cæsari_, tam parata unquam
adfuit recordatio, quam tibi sacra mens tua loco momentoque, quo
jusseris, reddit omne depositum?” (Latinus Pacatus, _Panegyricus in
Theodosium_, XVIII. 3.)--(Pliny, _Natural History_, VII. 25.)

[763] “Quamvis moderate soleret irasci, maluit tamen non posse.”
(Seneca, _De Ira_, II. 23.)

[764] Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 4.

[765] Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 19.

[766] “To the external advantages which distinguished him from all the
other citizens, Cæsar joined an impetuous and powerful soul.” (Velleius
Paterculus, II. 41.)

[767] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 15.

[768] “By his voice, his gesture, the grand and noble air of his person,
he had a certain brilliant manner of speech, without the least
artifice.” (Cicero, _Brutus_, 75; copied by Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 55.)

[769] Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 18.

[770] “From his first youth he was much used to horseback, and had even
acquired the facility of riding with dropped reins and his hands joined
behind his back.” (Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 18.)

[771] “He ate and slept without enjoying the pleasure of either, and
only to obey necessity.” (Velleius Paterculus, II. 41.)

[772] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 53.--(Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 18 and 58.)

[773] “And when,” says Cicero, “I look at his hair, so artistically
arranged; and when I see him scratch his head with one finger, I cannot
believe that such a man could conceive so black a design as to overthrow
the Roman Republic.” (Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 4.)

[774] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 45.--Cicero said likewise, “I suffered myself
to be caught by the fashion of his girdle,” alluding to his hanging
robe, which gave him an effeminate appearance. (Macrobius, _Saturnalia_,
II. 3.)

[775] Dio Cassius, XLIII. 43.

[776] Velleius Paterculus, II. 41.

[777] Suetonius (_Cæsar_, 1) says that Cæsar was _designated_
(_destinatus_) flamen. Velleius Paterculus (II. 43), that he was
_created_ flamen. In our opinion he was created, but not _inaugurated_,
flamen. Now, as long as this formality was not accomplished, he was only
the flamen designate. What proves that he had never been _inaugurated_
is, that Sylla could revoke it; and, on another hand, Tacitus says
(_Annales_, III. 53) that, after the death of Cornelius Merula, the
flamenship of Jupiter remained vacant for seventy-two years, without any
interruption to the special worship of this god. So that, evidently,
they did not count the flamenship of Cæsar as real, since he had never
entered on his office.

[778] “Dimissa Cossutia ... quæ pretextato desponsata fuerat.”
(Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 1.)--This passage from Suetonius clearly indicates
that he was betrothed, and not married, to Cossutia; for Suetonius uses
the word _dimittere_, which means “to _free_,” and not the word
_repudiare_ in its true meaning; besides, _desponsata_ signifies
_betrothed_.--Plutarch says that Cornelia was the first wife of Cæsar,
though he pretends that he married Pompeia as his third. (Plutarch,
_Cæsar_, 5.)

[779] Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 5.

[780] Velleius Paterculus, II. 41.

[781] “What an infamy to introduce into his house a pregnant woman, with
her husband still living; and to thrust from it, ignominiously and
cruelly, Antistia, whose father had just perished for the husband who
repudiated her!” (Plutarch, _Pompey_, 8.)

[782] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 1.

[783] Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 1.--Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 74.

[784] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 74.

[785] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 1.

[786] The vestals enjoyed great privileges: if they met by chance a
criminal on his way to execution, he was set at liberty. (Plutarch,
_Numa_, 14.)--Valerius Maximus (V. iv. 6) reports the following fact:
“The vestal Claudia, seeing that a tribune of the people was about to
drag her father, Appius Claudius Pulcher, with violence from his
triumphal car, interfered between the tribune and him, by virtue of her
right to oppose violence.”--Cicero (_Oration for Cœlius_, 14) likewise
alludes to this celebrated anecdote.

[787] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 1.

[788] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 2.

[789] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 2.--Pliny, XVI. 4.--Aulus Gellius, V. 6.

[790] C. Cæsar, grand pontiff, in his discourse for the Bithynians, thus
expresses himself in his exordium:--“The hospitality which I have
received from King Nicomedes, and the bond of friendship which unites me
to those whose cause is under debate, do not permit me, Marcus Juncus,
to decline this office (_that of being the advocate of the Bithynians_);
for death ought not to efface from the memory of their kindred the
recollection of those who have lived, and we could not, without the last
degree of disgrace, abandon our clients, those to whom, after our
kindred, we owe our support.” (Aulus Gellius, V. xiii. 1.)

[791] “Nothing damaged his reputation for chastity,” says Suetonius,
“except his sojourn with Nicomedes; but the opprobrium which resulted
from it was grave and lasting; it exposed him to the sneers of all. I
will say nothing of those well-known verses of Calvus Licinius--

    ... ‘Bithynia quidquid
        Et pedicator Cæsaris unquam habuit.’

I will be silent on the speeches of Dolabella and Curio the father, ...
neither will I linger over the edicts in which Bibulus publicly exposed
his colleague by speaking of him as the _queen of Bithynia_.... M.
Brutus informs us that a certain Octavius, whose craziness allowed him
to say what he would, being one day in a numerous assembly, called
Pompey _king_, then saluted Cæsar by the name of _queen_. C. Memmius
also reproaches him for having mixed himself up with other debauchees to
present Nicomedes with cups and wine at table, and he quotes the names
of several Roman merchants who were among the guests.... Cicero
apostrophised him once in full Senate. Cæsar was defending there the
cause of Nysa, daughter of Nicomedes; he recalled the obligations which
he owed to this king. ‘Let us pass by all that, I beg you,’ cried
Cicero: ‘we know only too well what he has given thee, and what he has
received from thee.’ On his triumph over the Gauls, the soldiers, among
other satirical verses which it was their custom to sing as they
followed the car of the general, repeated these, which are well known:--

    ‘Gallias Cæsar subegit, Nicomedes Cæsarem.
     Ecce Cæsar nunc triumphat, qui subegit Gallias;
     Nicomedes non triumphat, qui subegit Cæsarem.’”

(Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 40.)

[792] Cicero, _Letters to Atticus_, II. 19.

[793] These reports, like other calumnies, were propagated by Cæsar’s
enemies, such as Curio and Bibulus, and repeated in the ridiculous
annals of Tanusius Geminus (Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 9), the authority of
which Seneca despised. “Thou knowest that not much account is made of
these annals of Tanusius, and how they are designated.” (Seneca,
_Epistle_ 93.)--Catullus (xxxvi. 1) gives us that term of contempt to
which Seneca alludes (_cacata charta_).

[794] “Marius had in his army a nephew, called Caius Lucius, who,
overcome by a shameful passion for one of his subordinates, offered him
an act of violence. The man drew his sword and killed him. Cited before
the tribunal of Marius, instead of being punished he was loaded with
praises by the consul, who gave him one of the crowns which were the
usual reward of courage.” (Plutarch, _Marius_, 15.)

[795] “Cæsar was not vexed at being accused of loving Cleopatra; but he
could not bear that they should say he had been loved by Nicomedes. _He
swore it was a calumny._” (Xiphilinus, _Julius Cæsar_, p. 30, Paris
edition, 1678.)

[796] Orosius, V. 23.

[797] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 3.

[798] Florus, III. 23.

[799] Appian, I. 107.

[800] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 3.

[801] Sallust, _Fragments_, I., p. 363.

[802] Florus, III. 23.

[803] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 3.

[804] “The Romans regarded as honourable accusations which had no
private enmity as their motive, and they liked to see young men attach
themselves to the pursuit of the guilty, as generous dogs attack wild
beasts.” (Plutarch, _Lucullus_, 1.)

[805] Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 4.--Asconius, _Discourse for Scaurus_, XVI. ii.
245, edit. Schütz.

[806] Valerius Maximus, VIII. ix. § 3.--“Cæsar was twenty-one years of
age when he attacked Dolabella, in a speech which we still read to-day
with admiration.” (Tacitus, _Dialogue on the Orators_, 34.)--According
to the chronological order which we have adopted, Cæsar, instead of
twenty-one, would have been twenty-three years old; but as Tacitus, in
the same citation, also errs, by two years, in making Crassus, who had
accused Carbo, nineteen instead of twenty-one, we may suppose that he
has committed the same mistake with Cæsar. In fact, Crassus tells his
own age in Cicero (_On the Orators_, III. 20, § 74): “Quippe qui _omnium
maturrime_ ad publicas causas accesserim, annosque natus _unum et
viginti_ nobilissimum hominem in judicium vocarim.”--Crassus, the
orator, was born in 614; he accused Carbo in 635, the date given by
Cicero.

[807] Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 3.--Asconius, _Commentaries on the Oration, “In
Toga Candida,”_ pp. 84, 89, edit. Orelli.

[808] _Dialogue on the Orators_, 21.

[809] Cicero, _Oration for Cluentius_, 59. The manuscripts of Cicero
bear _Cn. Decitius_.

[810] This island, now called _Fermaco_, is at the entrance of the Gulf
of Assem-Kalessi. Pliny and Stephen of Byzantium are the only
geographers who mention it, and the last tells us further, that it was
here that Attalus, the famous lieutenant of Philip of Macedon, was slain
by Alexander’s order.

[811] Polyænus, _Stratagems_, VII. 23.

[812] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 4.

[813] Velleius Paterculus, II. 41.

[814] Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 2.

[815] Plutarch, _Crassus_, 8.

[816] Suetonius mentions, as an act of humanity, that their corpses
alone were nailed to the cross, Cæsar having had them strangled
beforehand to shorten their agony. (Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 74.--Velleius
Paterculus, II. 42.)

[817] Suetonius, Cæsar, 4.

[818] Velleius Paterculus, II. 43.--Asconius, _On the Oration of Cicero
against Pisa_; edit. Orelli.

[819] Velleius Paterculus, II. 53.

[820] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 5.--Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 5.

[821] The tribunes by the nomination of the general were usually called
_rufuli_, because they were established by the law of Rutilius Rufus;
the military tribunes elected by the people were called _comitati_; they
were held as veritable magistrates. (Pseudo-Asconius, _Commentary on the
First Speech of Cicero against Verres_, p. 142, edit. Orelli; and Festus
under _Rufuli_, p. 261, edit. Müller.)

[822] Plutarch, _Sertorius_, 15, 16.

[823] “The enemy was already master of the passes which lead to Italy;
from the foot of the Alps, he (Pompey) drove him back to Spain.”
(Sallust, _Letter from Pompey to the Senate_.)

[824] Velleius Paterculus, II. 30.--100,000 according to Appian (_Civil
Wars_, I. 117).

[825] Plutarch, _Lucullus_, 8.

[826] Sallust, _Fragments_, III. 258.

[827] Appian, _Civil Wars_, I. xiv. 121.

[828] “The Republic, wounded and sick, so to say, had need of repose, no
matter at what price.” (Sallust, _Fragments_, I. 68.)

[829] “We see how far are carried the jealousy and animosity which the
virtue and activity of the new men light up in the heart of certain
nobles. If we turn away our eyes never so little, what snares do they
not lay for us! One would say that they were of another nature, another
kind, so much are their feelings and wishes opposed to ours.” (Cicero,
_Second Prosecution of Verres_, v. 71.)--“The nobility transmitted from
hand to hand this supreme dignity (the consulship), of which they were
in exclusive possession. Every new man, whatever his renown and the
glory of his deeds, appeared unworthy of this honour; he was as if
sullied by the stain of his birth.” (Sallust, _Jugurtha_, 63.)

[830] Sallust, _Catilina_, 52.

[831] Plutarch, _Lucullus_, 9.

[832] Cicero, _First Prosecution of Verres_, 8, 9, 12; _Second
Prosecution_, i. 29.--Pseudo-Asconius, _On the first Prosecution of
Verres_, page 145, edit. Orelli. The orations of Cicero are full of
allusions to these agents for the purchase of votes and judges.

[833] “In these later years, the men who make a trade of intriguing in
elections have been enabled, by diligence and address, to obtain from
the citizens of their tribes all that they chose to demand. Endeavour,
by any means you will, to make these men serve you sincerely and with
the steadfast will to succeed. You would obtain it if men were as
grateful as they ought to be; and you will obtain it, I am afraid,
since, for two years, four societies of those most influential in
elections--those of Marcus Fundanius, Quintas Gallius, Gaius Cornelius,
and Gaius Orcivius--have engaged themselves for you. I was present when
the causes of these men were entrusted to you, and I know what was
promised to you, and what guarantees have been given to you by their
associates.” (_On the Petition for the Consulship addressed to Cicero by
his brother Quintus_, 5.)

[834] Cicero, _First Prosecution of Verres_, 13.

[835] “Each city of the conquered peoples has a patron at Rome.”
(Appian, _Civil Wars_, II. 4.)

[836] Cicero, _Second Prosecution of Verres_, III. 89. Cicero adds in a
letter, “We may judge, by the sufferings of our own fellow-citizens, of
what the inhabitants of the provinces have to endure from the public
farmers (_publicani_). When several tolls were suppressed in Italy,
remonstrances were made not so much against the principle of taxation as
against abuses in levying it, and the cries of the Romans on the soil of
the country tell only too plainly what must be the fate of the allies at
the extremity of the empire.” (_Letters to Quintus_, I. 1, § 33.)

[837] Dio Cassius, 86; _Fragments_, CCCI. edit. Gros.

[838] Cicero, _On Duties_, II. 17; _Letters to Quintus_, II. 6, §
4.--Plutarch, _Brutus_, 14.

[839] Florus, III. 21.

[840] “The name of C. Marius--of that great man who we may justly call
the father of the country, the regenerator of our liberty, the saviour
of the Republic.” (Cicero, _Speech for Rabirius_, 10.)--“I have, as your
guarantee, your indignation against Sylla.” (Dio Cassius, XXXVI. 17,
_Oration of Catulus to the Senate_.)--“Where can we find a personage
(Marius) more serious, more firm, more distinguished by courage,
circumspection, conscience?” (Cicero, _Speech for Balbus_, 25.)--“Not
only do we suffer his acts (Sylla’s), but to prevent worse disasters,
greater ills, we give them the sanction of public authority.” (Cicero,
_Second Prosecution of Verres_, III. 35.)

[841] Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 6.

[842] Plutarch, _Pompey_, 12.

[843] Pompey slew Carbo, Perpenna, and Brutus, the father of the
assassin of Cæsar, who had yielded themselves to him: the first had
protected his youth and saved his patrimony. (Valerius Maximus, V. iii.
v.)

[844] Count Franz de Champagny, _Les Cæsars_, I. p. 50.

[845] “It was in his character to show little regard for what he was
ambitious to obtain.” (Dio Cassius, XXXVI. 7.)--“Pompey, with a heart as
depraved as his face was pure.” (Sallust, _Fragments_, II. 176.)

[846] “At last, when Pompey, haranguing the people for the first time at
the gates of the city, in his capacity of consul-designate, came to
treat of the matter which seemed to have been most ardently expected,
and let it be understood that he would re-establish the power of the
tribunes, he was received with applause, and a slight murmur of assent;
but when he added that the provinces were devastated and oppressed, the
tribunals disgraced, the judges without shame, and that he wished to be
watchful of these abuses, and to restore good order, then it was not by
a simple murmur, but by unanimous acclamations, that the people
testified their desires.” (Cicero, _First Prosecution of Verres_, 15.)

[847] Catulus, when asked his opinion on the re-establishment of the
tribunary power, began in these authoritative words:--“The conscript
fathers administer justice evilly and scandalously; and if, in the
tribunals, they had but answered the expectations of the Roman people,
the power of the tribunes would not have been so warmly regretted.”
(Cicero, _First Prosecution of Verres_, 15.)

[848] “His enemies had nothing else to reproach him with than the
preference which he gave to the people over the Senate.” (Plutarch,
_Pompey_, 20.)

[849] “He seconded with all his might those who wished to restore the
power of the tribunes.” (Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 5.)

[850] 7,100 talents. (Plutarch, _Crassus_, 1.)

[851] Plutarch, _Crassus_, 2.--Cicero, _On Duties_, I. 8.

[852] Plutarch, _Crassus_, 7.

[853] Plutarch, _Crassus_, 8.

[854] Plutarch, _Crassus_, 8.

[855] Plutarch, _Crassus_, 1, 16.

[856] “Cotta judicandi munus, quod C. Gracchus ereptum Senatui, ad
equites, Sylla ab illis ad Senatum transtulerat, æqualiter inter
utrumque ordinem partitus est.” (Velleius Paterculus, II. 32.)

[857] “Equidem mihi videor pro nostra necessitate, non labore, non
opera, non industria defuisse.” (Certainly, I believe I have displayed
all the zeal, all the endeavour, all the ability which our kinship
demands.) Cæsar, quoted by Aulus Gellius, XIII. 3.--Nonius Marcellus,
“_On the different significations of words_,” under the word
_Necessitas_.

[858] Sallust, _Fragments_, I. 68.

[859] Plutarch, _Pompey_, 21.

[860] Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 5.--Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 6.

[861] Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 5.

[862] The images of Æneas, of Romulus, and of the Kings of Alba Longa
also figured in the funeral canopy of the Julia family. (Tacitus,
_Annales_, IV. 9.)

[863] Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 5.--Velleius Paterculus, II. 43.

[864] Cicero, _Oration on the Manilian Law_, 12; _For Fonteius_, 2.

[865] Cæsar, _Civil War_, I. 37.

[866] “Sextus Pompeius Cordubam tenebat, quod ejus provinciæ caput esse
existimabatur.” (Cæsar, _The War in Spain_, III.--Plutarch, _Cæsar_,
17.)

[867] Cicero, _Second Prosecution of Verres_, II. 13.--Paulus Diaconus,
under the word _Conventus_.--Müller, p. 41.

[868] Cicero, _Second Prosecution of Verres_, II. 20, 24, 30; IV.
29.--_Familiar Letters_, XV. iv.

[869] Pliny, _Natural History_, III. i., and IV. xxxv. The three
_conventus_ of Lusitania were held at Emerita, Pax Julia (_Béja_), and
at Scalabis: the four of Bætica were, Gades, Corduba, Astijo, Hispalis
(_Cadiz_, _Cordova_, _Ecija_, and _Seville_).

[870] Dio Cassius, XLIV. 39, 41.

[871] “From the beginning of my questorship, I have shown a special
affection for the province.” (Speech of Cæsar to the Spaniards, at
Hispalis, _Commentaries, The War in Spain_, 43.)

[872] Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 5.

[873] Titus Livius, XXI. 21.--Florus, II. 17.

[874] Plutarch, _Parallel between Alexander and Cæsar_, 6.--Suetonius,
_Cæsar_, 7.

[875] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 8.

[876] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 8.

[877] Velleius Paterculus, II. 31.

[878] Daughter of Q. Pompeius Rufus, and Fausta, daughter of Sylla.
(Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 5.--Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 6.)

[879] The ships of the corsairs amounted to more than a thousand, and
the towns which they took to four hundred. (Plutarch, _Pompey_, 23.)

[880] Plutarch, _Pompey_, 24.

[881] Cicero, _Speech on the Manilian Law_, 12.

[882] “Aulus Gabinius was a very bad citizen, in no wise inspired by
love of the public good.” (Dio Cassius, XXXVI. 6.)

[883] Dio Cassius, XXXVI. 7.

[884] Plutarch, _Pompey_, 26.

[885] Dio Cassius, XXXVI. 20.--Appian, _War of Mithridates_, 94.

[886] Plutarch, _Pompey_, 27.--“The very day on which you placed your
naval armies under his orders, the price of corn, until then excessive,
fell at once so low that the richest harvest, in the midst of a long
peace, would have scarcely produced so happy an abundance.” (Cicero,
_Oration for the Manilian Law_, 15.)

[887] Florus and Appian do not quite agree on the division of these
commands. (Appian, _War of Mithridates_, 95.--Florus, III. 6.)

[888] Velleius Paterculus, II. 32.--Plutarch, _Pompey_, 29.

[889] Dio Cassius, XXXV. 14 and 15.

[890] Plutarch, _Pompey_, 31.

[891] Cicero, _Oration for the Manilian Law_, 16.

[892] Plutarch, _Pompey_, 31.

[893] Cicero, _Oration for the Manilian Law_, 23.

[894] Dio Cassius, XXXVI. 26.--Plutarch, _Lucullus_, 50, 52.

[895] “The tribune Manilius, a venal soul, and the debased instrument of
the ambition of others.” (Velleius Paterculus, II. 33.)

[896] “As to the Valerians, informed that the magistrates at Rome had
given them their discharge, they immediately abandoned their flags.”
(Dio Cassius, XXXV. 15.)

[897] “They called _Valerians_ the soldiers of Valerius Flaccus, who,
having passed into the command of Fimbria, had left their general in
Asia to join themselves to Sylla.” “These same soldiers, under the
orders of Pompey (for he enrolled the Valerians anew), did not dream
even of revolt, so much does one man carry it over another.” (Dio
Cassius, XXXV. 16.)

[898] “There was no shame,” he said, “in submitting to him whom fortune
raised above all the others.” (Velleius Paterculus, II. 37.)

[899] Dio Cassius, XXXV. 16.

[900] This is taken from a passage of Cicero compared with another of
Sallust. In fact, Cicero, in his _Oration for Murena_ (23), thus
expresses himself _Confusionem suffragiorum_ flagitasti, prorogationem
legis Maniliæ, æquationem gratiæ, dignitatis, suffragiorum.” It is clear
that Cicero could not allude to the Manilian law on the freedmen, but to
that of Caius Gracchus, since Sallust employs nearly the same words
concerning this law, saying: “Sed de magistratibus creandis haud mihi
quidem absurde placet lex, quam C. Gracchus in tribunatu promulgaverat:
ut _ex confusis quinque classibus_ sorte centuriæ vocarentur. Ita
_coæquali dignitate_ pecunia, virtute anteire alius alium properabit.”
(Sallust, _Letters to Cæsar_, vii.)

[901] Dio Cassius, III. 36, 40.

[902] Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 5.

[903] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 10.--Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 10.

[904] Titus Livius, IX. 40.

[905] Dio Cassius, XXXVII. 8.

[906] “The gladiators whom you have bought are a very fine acquisition.
It is said that they are well trained, and if you had wished to let them
out on the last occasion, you would have regained what they have cost
you.” (Cicero, _Letters to Atticus_, IV. 4.)

[907] Servius, _Commentary on Book III. verse 67 of the
Æneid_.--Tertullian, _On the Shows_, V.--Titus Livius, XXIII. 30; XXIX.
46.--Valerius Maximus, II. iv. § 7.

[908] “When Cæsar, afterwards dictator, but then ædile, gave funeral
games in honour of his father, all that was used in the arena was of
silver; silver lances glittered in the hands of the criminals and
pierced the wild beasts, an example which even simple municipal towns
imitate.” (Pliny, _Natural History_, XXXIII. 3.)

[909] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 10.

[910] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 11.

[911] Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 6.

[912] Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 6.

[913] Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 6.

[914] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 11.--Cicero, _First Oration on the Agrarian
Law_, i. 16.

[915] Justin, xxix. 5, Scholiast of Bobbio, _On the Oration of Cicero,
“De Rege Alexandrino,”_ p. 350, edit. Orelli.

[916] Cicero, _Second Oration on the Agrarian Law_, xvi.

[917] “Augustus made it one, among other state maxims, to sequester
Egypt, forbidding the Roman knights and senators of the first rank ever
to go there without his permission. He feared that Italy might be
famished by the first ambitious person who should seize the province,
where, holding the keys of both land and sea, he might defend himself
with very few soldiers against great armies.” (Tacitus, _Annals_, II.
59.)

[918] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 11.

[919] Dio Cassius, XXXVII. 9.

[920] “You name me a foreigner because I have come from a municipal
town. If you regard us as foreigners, although our name and rank were
formerly well established at Rome, and in public opinion, how much then
must these competitors be foreigners in your eyes, this _élite_ of
Italy, who come from all parts to dispute with you magistrateships and
honours?” (Cicero, _Oration for Sylla_, 8.)

[921] See Drumann, _Julii_, 147.

[922] J. Paul, _Sentences_, V. iv., p. 417, edit. Huschke.--Justinian,
_Institutes_, IV. xviii. § 5.--Appian, _On the Office of the Proconsul_,
vii.

[923] “Then, in the instructions directed against the _sicarii_, and the
exceptions proposed by the Cornelian law, he ranked among these
malefactors those who, during the proscription, had received money from
the public treasury for having brought to Sylla the heads of Roman
citizens.” (Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 11.)

[924] Plutarch, _Cato_, 21.--Dio Cassius, XLVII. 6.

[925] Cicero, _Third Speech on the Agrarian Law_, 4.

[926] Dio Cassius, XXXVII. 10.--Asconius, _Commentary on the Orations of
Cicero, “In Toga Candida,”_ pp. 91, 92, edit Orelli.

[927] Asconius, _In Toga Candida_, p. 91.

[928] Sallust, _Catiline_, 19.

[929] Plutarch, _Cicero_, 15.

[930] “I am preparing at this moment to defend Catiline, my competitor.
I hope, if I obtain his acquittal, to find him disposed to come to an
understanding with me on our next steps. If he is against this, I will
[I shall know what to do (?)] take my way.” (Cicero, _Letters to
Atticus_, I. ii.)

[931] Cicero, _Oration for Sylla_, 29.

[932] Plutarch, _Cato_, 3.

[933] Asconius, _Cicero’s Oration_, “_In Toga Candida_,” p. 82, edit.
Orelli.

[934] Plutarch, _Cicero_, 3.

[935] They called new men those who amongst their ancestors counted none
that had held a high magistracy. (Appian, _Civil Wars_, II. 2.)--Cicero
also confirms this fact: “I am the first new man that, for a great
number of years, is remembered to have been appointed consul; and this
eminent post, in which the nobility were in a manner entrenched, and to
which they had closed all the avenues, you have, to place me at your
head, forced the barriers; you have desired that merit henceforth find
them open.” (Cicero, _Second Oration on the Agrarian Law_, 1.)

[936] Sallust, _Catiline_, 23.

[937] “Cicero favoured sometimes the one, sometimes the other, to be
sought after by both parties.” (Dio Cassius, XXXVI. 26.)

[938] _Second Oration on the Agrarian Law_, 25.

[939] The territories conceded by a treaty being excepted, which freed
from this obligation the African territory, which had become, since
Scipio, the property of the Republic, and given by Pompey to Hiempsal.
In Campania every colonist was obliged to have ten _jugera_, and, on the
territory of Stella, twelve.

[940] Cicero, _Second Oration on the Agrarian Law_, 26.

[941] Cicero, _Letters to Atticus_, II. 1.--Plutarch, _Cicero_,
17.--“When young Romans, full of merit and honour, have found themselves
in such a position that their admissibility to magistracies has effected
the overthrow of the State, I have dared to brave their enmity, to
interdict their access to the comitia and to honours.” (Cicero, _Oration
against L. Piso_.)

[942] “They wish to deprive the Republic of all refuge, of every
guarantee of safety in difficult conjunctures.” (Cicero, _Oration for
Rabirius_, 2.)

[943] “This supreme power which, according to the institutions of Rome,
the Senate confers upon the magistrates, consists in raising troops, in
making war, in keeping to their duties, by every means, the allies and
citizens; in exercising supremely, equally at Rome or abroad, both civil
and military authority. In all other cases, without the express order of
the people, none of these prerogatives are conferred upon the consuls.”
(Sallust, _Catiline_, 29.)

[944] Cicero, _Oration for Rabirius_, 9.

[945] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 12.

[946] Dio Cassius, XXXVII. 26, 27.

[947] Macrobius, _Saturnalia_, I. 16.--Priscian, vi., p. 710, edit.
Putsch.--Macrobius (_l. c._) quotes the 16th book of the treatise of
Cæsar on the Auspices.--Dio Cassius (xxxvii.) expresses himself thus:
“Above all, because he had supported Labienus against Rabirius, and had
not voted for the death of Lentulus.” But the Greek author errs: the
nomination of Cæsar to the high pontificate took place before the
conspiracy of Catiline. (See Velleius Paterculus, II. 43.)

[948] Appian, _Civil Wars_, II. 1, 8, 14.

[949] Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 7.

[950] Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 7.

[951] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 13.

[952] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 46.

[953] “On the 23rd of August, the day of inauguration of Lentulus,
flamen of Mars, the house was decorated, and couches of ivory were set
up in the triclinia. In the two first halls were the pontiffs Q.
Catulus, M. Æmilius Lepidus, D. Silanus, C. Cæsar, king of the
sacrifices, and ... L. Julius Cæsar, augur. The third received the
vestals. The repast was thus composed:--For the first course:
sea-urchins, raw oysters in any quantity, pelorides (a kind of oyster of
extraordinary size), spondyli (shell-fish of the oyster kind), thrushes,
asparagus; and, lower down, a fat hen, a vol-au-vent of large oysters,
and sea-acorns black and white (sea and river shell-fish according to
Pliny). Then more spondyli, glycomarides (another shell-fish mentioned
by Pliny), sea-nettles, beccaficos, filets of venison and wild boar,
fatted fowls powdered with flour, beccaficos, murices and purple fish
(shell-fish bristling with points, which yielded the purple of the
ancients). Second course: sows’ udders, wild boar’s head, fish-pie,
sows’ udder-pie, ducks, boiled teal, hares, roast fowls, starch (flour
that is obtained in the same manner as starch, without grinding--many
sorts of creams, _amylaria_, were made of it), loaves from Picenum.”
(Macrobius, _Saturnalia_, III. 9.)

[954] “It was at the very point when it required no more to upset the
weakly government than a slight impulse from the first bold man who
presented himself.” (Plutarch, _Cicero_, 15.)

[955] Cicero, _Oration for M. Cælius_, 5. This oration was delivered in
the year 698.

[956] Plutarch, _Cicero_, 19.

[957] Sallust, _Catiline_, 27, 28.

[958] This is deduced from what Florus (III. 6) says of the command of
the fleet which L. Gellius had, and from a passage in Cicero. (_First
Oration after his Return_, 7.)--L. Gellius expresses himself clearly
upon the danger the Republic had run, and proposed the awarding of a
civic crown to Cicero. (Cicero, _Letters to Atticus_, XII. 21; _Oration
against Piso_, 3.--Aulus Gellius, V. 6.)

[959] Cicero, _First Catiline Oration_, 1; _Second Catiline Oration_, 1.

[960] Sallust, _Catiline_, 32.

[961] Sallust, _Catiline_, 30, 31.--Plutarch, _Cicero_, 17.

[962] Sallust, _Catiline_, 47.

[963] Sallust, _Catiline_, 51.--Appian, _Civil Wars_, II. 6.

[964] Cicero, _Fourth Catiline Oration_, 1.

[965] Cicero, _Fourth Catiline Oration_, 2.

[966] _Second Catiline Oration_, 4.

[967] _First Oration against Catiline_, 2.

[968] _Second Oration on the Agrarian Law_, 5.

[969] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 14.

[970] Cicero, _Fourth Oration against Catiline_, 5.

[971] Sallust, _Catiline_, 52.

[972] Plutarch, _Cato_, 28.--See the _Comparison of Alexander and
Cæsar_, 7.

[973] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 53.

[974] Sallust, _Catiline_, 52.

[975] Plutarch, _Cicero_, 28.

[976] Sallust, _Catiline_, 49.

[977] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 8.

[978] Sallust, _Catiline_, 49.

[979] “They feared his power and the great number of friends by whom he
was supported, for everybody was persuaded that the criminals would be
involved in the absolution of Cæsar, much more than Cæsar in their
punishment.” (Plutarch, _Cicero_, 27.)

[980] “And I have myself since heard Crassus say openly that this cruel
affront had been caused him by Cicero.” (Sallust, _Catiline_, 48.)

[981] We may read in the historians of the time the recital of fables
invented at will to ruin the conspirators. Thus Catiline, seeking to
bind by an oath accomplices in his crime, is represented as causing cups
filled with human blood and wine to be passed round. (Sallust,
_Catiline_, 22.)--According to Plutarch, they slaughtered a man, and all
ate of his flesh. (Plutarch, _Cicero_, 14.--Florus, IV. 1.)

[982] Cicero himself acknowledged that these accusations were
commonplaces for the necessity of the cause. In a letter to Atticus, he
describes a scene which passed in the Senate a short time after the
return of Pompey to Rome. He tells us that this general satisfied
himself with approving all the acts of the Senate, without imputing
anything personal to him (Cicero); “but Crassus,” he continues, “rose
and spoke with much eloquence.... Brief, he attacked _all the
commonplace of sword and flame_, which I have been accustomed to treat,
you know in how many ways, in my orations, of which you are the
sovereign critic.” (Cicero, _Letters to Atticus_, I. 14.)

[983] “The populace, who at first, through the love of novelty, had been
only too much inclined for this war, changes its sentiments, curses the
enterprise of Catiline, and exalts Cicero to the skies.” (Sallust,
_Catiline_, 48.)

[984] Sallust, _Catiline_, 39.--Dio Cassius, XXVII. 36.

[985] “Many young estimable noblemen were attached to this wicked and
corrupt man.” (Cicero, _Oration for M. Cælius_, 4.)--“He had drawn
around him men perverse and audacious, at the same time that he had
attached to himself numbers of virtuous and steady citizens, by the
false semblances of an affected virtue.” (Cicero, _ibid._ 6.)

[986] Sallust, _Catiline_, 17.

[987] “And this silver eagle, to which he had consecrated in his house
an altar.” (Cicero, _Second Oration against Catiline_, 6.)

[988] Sallust, _Catiline_, 20.

[989] Sallust, _Catiline_, 33. Speech of the envoys sent by Mallius to
Marcius Rex.

[990] Sallust, _Catiline_, 30.

[991] Sallust, _Catiline_, 36.

[992] “Meanwhile, he kept refusing slaves, who, from the beginning, had
never ceased joining him in large bands. Full of confidence in the
resources of the conspiracy, he regarded any appearance of confounding
the cause of the citizens with that of the slaves as contrary to his
policy.” (Sallust, _Catiline_, 56.)

[993] Sallust, _Catiline_, 44.

[994] “People who will fall at our feet, if I show them, I do not say
the points of our swords, but the edict of the prætor.” (Cicero, _Second
Oration against Catiline_, 3.)

[995] Sallust, _Catiline_, 61.

[996] Dio Cassius, XXXVII. 10.

[997] The Emperor Napoleon, in the _Mémorial de Sainte-Hélène_, also
treats as a fable this opinion of the historians that Catiline desired
to burn Rome, and give it up to pillage, in order afterwards to govern a
ruined city. The Emperor thought, said M. de Las Cases, that it was
rather some new faction, after the manner of Marius and Sylla, which,
having been unsuccessful, had seen all the unfounded accusations that
are brought in such cases heaped upon its leader.

[998] Cicero, _Oration for Flaccus_, 38.

[999] “He excited public cavil, not by evil actions, but by his habit of
self-glorification. He never went to the Senate, to the assemblies of
the people, to the courts of law, without having on his lips the names
of Catiline and Lentulus.” (Plutarch, _Cicero_, 31.)

[1000] Cicero, _Familiar Letters_, v. 7.

[1001] See Cæsar’s speech, quoted above.

[1002] It may be interesting to reproduce here, from the letters of
Cicero, the list of the discourses which he delivered during the year of
his consulship. “I wished, I also, after the manner of Demosthenes, to
have my political speeches, which may be named _consulars_. The first
and second are on the Agrarian Law; the former before the Senate on the
calends of January; the second before the people; the third, about Otho;
the fourth, for Rabirius; the fifth, on the children of the proscribed;
the sixth, on my relinquishing my province; the seventh is that which
put Catiline to flight; the eighth was delivered before the people the
day after his flight; the ninth, from the tribune, the day when the
Allobroges came to give their evidence; the tenth, before the Senate, on
the 5th of December. There are two more, not so long, which may be
described as supplementary to the two first on the Agrarian Law.”
(Cicero, _Letters to Atticus_, II. 1.)

[1003] Velleius Paterculus, II. 40.--Dio Cassius, XXXVII. 21.

[1004] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 46.

[1005] Dio Cassius, XXXVII. 44; XLIII. 14.

[1006] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 16.

[1007] Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 43.--Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 16.--Cicero,
_Oration for Sestius_, 29.

[1008] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 16.

[1009] Cicero, _Letters to Atticus_, II. 24.

[1010] Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 9.

[1011] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 17.

[1012] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 17.

[1013] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 50.

[1014] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 50.

[1015] Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 10.

[1016] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 1.--Plutarch, _Cicero_, 27; Plutarch,
_Cæsar_, 10.--“This sacrifice is offered by the vestal virgins, on
behalf of the Roman people, in the house of a magistrate who has the
right of _imperium_, with ceremonies that it is not allowable to reveal.
The goddess to whom it is offered is one whose very name is a mystery to
men, and whom Clodius terms the _Good Goddess_ (_Bona Dea_), because she
forgave him so gross an outrage.” (Cicero, _Oration on the Report of the
Augurs_, 17.)--The _Good Goddess_, like the majority of the divinities
of the earth among the ancients, was regarded as a sort of beneficent
fairy who presided over the fertility of the fields and the conception
of women. The nocturnal sacrifice was celebrated at the beginning of
December, in the house of the consul or the prætor, by the wife of that
magistrate, or by the vestal virgins. At the commencement of the
festival they made a propitiatory sacrifice of a pig, and prayers were
offered for the prosperity of the Roman people.

[1017] Cicero, _Letters to Atticus_, I. 14.

[1018] Cicero, _Letters to Atticus_, I. 16.

[1019] Cicero, _Letters to Atticus_, I. 17.

[1020] Appian, _Mithridatic War_, 101.

[1021] Appian, _Mithridatic War_, 106.

[1022] Dio Cassius, XXXVII. 20.

[1023] Dio Cassius, XXXVII. 44. In contradiction to other authors, Dio
Cassius asserts that the elections were adjourned. (Plutarch, _Pompey_,
45.)

[1024] “The more men were terrified, the more they were re-assured, on
seeing Pompey return to his country as a simple citizen.” (Velleius
Paterculus, II. 40.)

[1025] Cicero, _Letters to Atticus_, I. 12.

[1026] Metellus was subjugating Crete, when Pompey sent one of his
lieutenants to depose him, under the pretence that that island was
included in his own wide jurisdiction by sea.

[1027] Dio Cassius, XXXVII. 49.

[1028] “No rectitude, no candour, not a single honourable motive in his
policy; nothing elevated, nothing strong, nothing generous.” (Cicero,
_Letters to Atticus_, I. 12.)

[1029] Plutarch, _Pompey_, 47.

[1030] Pliny, _Natural History_, XXXVII. 5.

[1031] Vases from Carmania that were highly prized. They reflected the
colours of the rainbow, and, according to Pliny, a single one was sold
for seventy talents (more than 300,000 francs [£12,000]). (Pliny,
_Natural History_, XXXVII, 7, 8.)

[1032] Pliny, XXXIII. 54.--Strabo, XII. 545.

[1033] Appian, _War against Mithridates_, 116.

[1034] Pliny, _Natural History_, XII. 9, 54.

[1035] Dio Cassius, XXXVI. 2.--Velleius Paterculus, II. 34.

[1036] Appian, _War against Mithridates_, 117.

[1037] Plutarch, _Pompey_, 47.--Dio Cassius, XXXVII. 21.

[1038] Cicero, _Oration for Murena_, 14.

[1039] Cicero, _Letters to Atticus_, I. 18.

[1040] Dio Cassius, XXXVII. 50.

[1041] Cicero, _Letters to Atticus_, I. 19.

[1042] Cicero, _Letters to Atticus_, I. 19.

[1043] Cicero, _Oration on the Agrarian Law_, II. 27.

[1044] “Your ancestors never set you the example of buying lands from
individuals in order to send colonies thither. _All the laws, up to the
present time, have contented themselves with establishing them on the
lands belonging to the State._” (Cicero, _Oration on the Agrarian Law_,
II. 25.)

[1045] Plutarch, _Cato of Utica_, 36.

[1046] Dio Cassius, XXXVII. 51.

[1047] Plutarch, _Cato_, 35.

[1048] “People abuse the Senate; the equestrian order stands aloof from
it. Thus this year will have seen the overthrow of the two solid
foundations on which I, single-handed, had planted the Republic--the
authority of the Senate and the union of the two orders.” (Cicero,
_Letters to Atticus_, I. 18.)

[1049] Cicero, _Letters to Atticus_, II. 1.

[1050] Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 12.--Appian (_Civil Wars_, II. 2, § 8) speaks
of twenty-five million sestertii--_i.e._, 4,750,000 francs [£190,000].

[1051] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 18.

[1052] Cicero, _Letter to Atticus_, I. 14, 16.

[1053] “From his youth up he was zealous and true to his clients.”
(Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 71.)

[1054] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 12.

[1055] Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 12.

[1056] Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 12.

[1057] A chain of mountains in Portugal, now called _Sierra di
Estrella_, separating the basin of the Tagus from the valley of Mondego.
According to Cellarius (_Ancient Geography_, I. 60), Mount Herminium is
still called _Arminno_. The principal _oppidum_ belonging to the
population of these mountains seems to have been called Medobrega
(_Membrio_). It is mentioned in _Cæsar’s Commentaries, War of
Alexandria_, 48.

[1058] Probably in the modern province of Leyria.

[1059] A survey made, in August, 1861, by the Duc de Bellune, leaves no
doubt that the peninsula of Peniche was once an island. The local
traditions state that in ancient times the ocean advanced as far as the
town of Atoguia; but since Dio Cassius speaks of the rising tide which
swept away soldiers, we must believe that there were fords at low tide.
We give extracts from Portuguese authors who have written on this
subject.

Bernard de Brito (_Portuguese Monarchy_, I. p. 429, Lisbon, 1790)
says:--“As along the entire coast of Portugal we cannot find, at the
present time, a single island that fulfils the conditions of the one
where Cæsar sought to disembark better than the peninsula, on which
there is a locality which, taking its name from its situation, is called
_Peniche_, we shall maintain, with our countryman Resende, that it is to
this that all the authors refer. And I do not believe it possible to
find one more suitable in every way than this: because, over and above
the fact that it is the only one, and situated at but a short distance
from the mainland, we see that when the tide is low it is possible to
traverse the strait dryshod, and with still greater facility than would
have been possible in ancient times, because the sea has silted up sand
against a large portion of this coast, and brought it to pass that the
sea does not rise to so high a point upon the land. Still, it rises high
enough to make it necessary, at high tide, to use a boat to reach the
island, and that in a space of about 500 paces in width, which separates
the island from the mainland.”

The following is the passage of Resende:--“Sed quærendum utrobique
quænam insula ista fuerit terræ contigua, ad quam sive pedibus sive
natatu profugi transire potuerint, ad quam similiter et milites
trajicere tentarint? Non fuisse Londobrin, cujus meminit Ptolomæus
(_Berligam_ modo dicimus), indicio est distantia a continente non
modica. Et quum alia juxta Lusitaniæ totius littus nulla nostra ævo
exstet, hæc de qua Dion loquitur, vel incumbenti violentius mari abrasa,
vel certe peninsula illa oppidi Peniche juxta Atonguiam, erit
intelligenda. Nam etiam nunc alveo quingentis passibus lato a continente
sejungitur, qui pedibus æstu cedente transitur, redeunte vero insula
plane fit, neque adiri vado potest. Et forte illo sæculo fuerit
aliquanto major.” (L. André de Resende. _De Antiquitatibus Lusitaniæ
cæteraque Historica quæ exstant Opera_, Conimbricæ, 1790, I., p. 77.)

Antonio Carvalho (_Da costa corografia Portuguesa_, II. p. 144, Lisbon,
1712) sets forth the same view.

The preceding information is confirmed by the following letter of an
English bishop who accompanied the Crusaders, at the time of the siege
of Lisbon, in the reign of Alfonso Henrique, a.d. 1147:--“Die vero quasi
decima, impositis sarcinis nostris cum episcopis velificare incepimus
iter prosperum agentes. Die vero postera ad insulam Phenicis (vulgo
_Peniche_) distantis a continente quasi octingentis passibus feliciter
applicuimus. Insula abundat cervis et maxime cuniculis: liquiricium
(_lege_ glycyrrhizum) habet. Tyrii dicunt eam Erictream. Peni Gaddis, id
est septem, ultra quam non est terra: ideo extremus noti orbis terminus
dicitur. Juxta hanc sunt duæ insulæ quæ vulgo dicuntur Berlinges, id est
Baleares lingua corrupta, in una quarum est palatium admirabilis
architecturæ et multa officinarum diversoria regi cuidam, ut aiunt,
quondam gratissimum secretale hospicium.” (Letter of an English Crusader
on the sack of Lisbon, in _Portugalliæ Monumenta Historica, a sæculo
octavo post Christum usque ad quintum decimum, justa Academiæ
Scientiarum Olisiponensis edita_. Volumen I., fasciculus iii. Lisbon,
1861, p. 395.)

[1060] Dio Cassius, XXXVII. 52, 53.--“Cæsar, as soon as he arrived,
defeated the Lusitanians and the inhabitants of Galicia, and advanced as
far as the outer sea. Thus he caused people who had never yet recognised
the authority of the Romans to submit to them, and returned from his
government loaded with glory and wealth, of which he gave a part to his
soldiers.” (Zonaras, _Annales_, X. 6.)

[1061] Appian, _Civil Wars_, II. 8.

[1062] Cæsar, _Spanish War_, 42.

[1063] Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 12.

[1064] “There come forward a whole army of accusers against those who
enriched themselves by usury in contempt of a law passed by Cæsar when
he was dictator, regulating the proportion to be observed between the
debts and possessions in Italy: a law which had for a long while fallen
into desuetude through the interest of individuals.” (Tacitus, _Annals_,
vi. 16.--Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 42.)

[1065] “I will not enumerate all the marks of honour with which Cæsar
distinguished the people of this town when he was prætor in Spain; the
divisions he found means of healing among the citizens of Gades; the
laws which, with their consent, he gave them; the old barbarism of their
manners and customs, which he caused to disappear; the eagerness with
which, at the request of Balbus, he loaded them with benefits.” (Cicero,
_Oration for Balbus_, 19.)

[1066] “From his youth he was acquainted with Cæsar, and that great man
was pleased with him. Cæsar, among the crowd of friends he had, marked
him out as one of his intimates when he was prætor: when he was consul,
he made him overseer of the manufactory of his military engines. He had
experience of his prudence; appreciated his devotion; accepted his acts
of kindness and his affection. At that time Balbus shared nearly all the
labours of Cæsar.” (Cicero, _Oration for Balbus_, 28.)

[1067] “For this man (Cæsar) began by being prætor in Spain, and,
distrusting the loyalty of this province, he would not give its
inhabitants the chance of being subsequently more dangerous, through a
delusive peace. He chose to do what was of importance to the interests
of the Republic rather than to pass the days of his magistracy in
tranquillity; and as the Spaniards refused to surrender, he compelled
them to it by force. So he surpassed in honour those who had preceded
him in Spain; for it is a harder task to keep a conquest than to make
one.” (Dio Cassius, XLIV. 41.)

[1068] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 54.

[1069] “Cæsar arrives in two days.” (_Cicero to Atticus_, II. 1, June,
694.)

[1070] Thence the name of _candidate_.

[1071] “Many candidates for the consulship had been nominated in their
absence; as, for instance, Marcellus, in 540.” (Titus Livius, XXIV. 9.)

[1072] Plutarch, _Cato_, 36.

[1073] Florus, III. 23.

[1074] Cicero, _Letters to Atticus_, I. 18.

[1075] Cicero, _Letters to Atticus_, I. 18.

[1076] Cicero, _Letters to Atticus_, II. 1.

[1077] “It even appears that Cicero had lent the accused a million of
sestertii to purchase a mansion on the Palatine.” (Aulus Gellius, XII.
12.)

[1078] Cicero, _Letters to Atticus_, I. 12.

[1079] Cicero, _Letters to Atticus_, I. 19.

[1080] Cicero, _Letters to Atticus_, II. 1.

[1081] Cicero, _Letters to Atticus_, I. 19.

[1082] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 50.

[1083] Cicero, _Letters to Quintus_, I. 1, 11.

[1084] Cæsar, when consul and dictator, declared many foreign cities
free.

[1085] It will be seen in the next chapter that Cæsar recognized as
friends to the Roman people Auletes, king of Egypt, and Ariovistus, king
of the Germans.

[1086] _Duumvirs_, _decemvirs_, _vigintivirs_ were the names given to
magistrates who shared the same duties in boards of two, ten, or twenty.
In the present case, however, the object was only to bind together the
men of the greatest importance by a secret bond. Therefore the word
_triumvirate_ would be a misnomer.

[1087] “He wished me to join these three intimate consular men.”
(Cicero, _Oration on the Consular Provinces_, 17.)

[1088] Dio Cassius, XXXVII. 57.

[1089] Cicero, _Familiar Letters_, V. 12.

[1090] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 19.--Eutropius, VI. 14.--Plutarch, _Cæsar_,
13.

[1091] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 19.

[1092] Plutarch, _Cato_, 26.--Suetonius, 19.

[1093] “But will you say that we can only have the knights on our side
by paying for them? What are we to do? Have we a choice of means?”
(Cicero, _Letters to Atticus_, II. 1.)

[1094]

    “Inde domum repetes toto comitante senatu,
      Officium populi vix capiente domo.”
          Ovid, _Ex Ponto_, IV. Epist. 4.


[1095] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 19.

[1096] Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 1.

[1097] Appian, _Civil Wars_, II. 10.

[1098] Cicero, _Epistle to Atticus_, II. 3.--“When consul, he wished me
to take part in the operations of his consulship. Without approving
them, I felt nevertheless grateful to him for his deference.” (_Oration
on the Consular Provinces_, 17.)

[1099] Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 14.--Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 21.

[1100] Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 14.

[1101] Plutarch, _Cato_, 24.

[1102] Plutarch, _Cato_, 59.

[1103] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 20.

[1104] Titus Livius, IX. 8.

[1105] Appian, _Civil Wars_, II. 7.

[1106] Cicero, _Familiar Letters_, XIII. 4.

[1107] Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 1.

[1108] _Epistles to Atticus_, I. 18.--In allusion to a former law, we
read as follows: “The senators who have discussed the present law shall
be held, within ten days following the plebiscitum, to swear to maintain
it before the questor, in the treasury, in open day, and taking for
witnesses Jupiter and the gods Penates.” (_Table of Bantia_, Klenze,
_Philologische Abhandlungen_, IV. 16-24.)

[1109] Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 1.

[1110] Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 2.

[1111] Ateius Capito, _Treatise on the Duties of the Senator_, quoted by
Aulus Gellius, IV. 10.--Valerius Maximus, II. 10, § 7.

[1112] Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 4.

[1113] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 21.

[1114] Appian, _Civil Wars_, II. 11.

[1115] Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 6.

[1116] The consuls, prætors, and generally all those who presided at an
assembly of the people, or even who attended in quality of magistrates,
had a right of veto, founded on popular superstition. This right was
exercised by declaring that a celestial phenomenon had been _observed_
by them, and that it was no longer permitted to deliberate. _Jupiter
darting thunder or rain, all treating on affairs with the people must be
stopped_; such was the text of the law, religious or political,
published in 597. It was not necessary that it should thunder or rain,
in fact; the affirmation of a magistrate qualified to _observe the sky_
being enough. (Cicero, _Oration for Sextius_, 15.--_Oration on the
Consular Provinces_, 19.)--(Asconius, _In Piso_, p. 9, ed.
Orelli.)--(Orelli, Indices to his edition of Cicero, VIII.
126.)--(_Index Legum_, articles _Laws Ælia_ and _Fusia_.)

[1117] Valerius Maximus, III. vii. 6.

[1118] Plutarch, _Cato_, 37.

[1119] Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 7.--“The Campanian law contains a provision
which compels the candidates to swear, in the assembly of the people,
that they will never propose anything contrary to the Italian
legislation upon property. All have sworn, except Laterensis, who
preferred desisting from the candidature for the tribuneship to taking
the oath, and much gratitude has been shown to him for it.” (Cicero,
_Epistles to Atticus_, II. 18.)

[1120] This appears from the words of Dio Cassius (XXXVIII. 1). Several
scholars are unwilling to admit the existence of two agrarian laws; yet
Cicero, in his letter to Atticus (II. 7), written in April, announces
that the twenty commissioners are named. In this first law (_Familiar
Letters_, XIII. 4), he mentions the _ager_ of Volaterra, which was
certainly not in Campania. In another letter of the beginning of May
(_Letters to Atticus_, II. 16), he speaks of Campania for the first
time, and says that Pompey had approved the first agrarian law. Finally,
in that written in the month of June (_Letters to Atticus_, II. 18), he
speaks of the oath taken to the agrarian laws. Suetonius (_Cæsar_, 20)
and Appian (_Civil Wars_, II. 10) mention the Julian agrarian laws in
the plural. Titus Livius (_Epitome of Book_ CIII.) speaks of the _leges
agrariæ_ of Cæsar; and Plutarch (_Cato_, 38) says positively: “Elated
with this victory, Cæsar proposed a new law, to share among the poor and
indigent citizens nearly all the lands of Campania;” and previously, in
chapter 36, the same author had said of Cæsar, that he proposed laws for
the distribution of the lands to the poor citizens. Thus there were
positively two laws published at an interval of some months; and if the
object of the second was the distribution of the _ager Campanus_, the
first had without doubt a more general character. Dio Cassius, after
having related the proposal of the first agrarian law, in which Campania
was excepted, says similarly: “Besides, the territory of Campania was
given to those who had three children or more” (XXXVIII. 7).

[1121] Cicero, _Second Philippic_, 15.

[1122] _Liber Coloniarum_, edit. Lachmann, pp. 220, 235, 239, 259,
260.--Several of these colonies probably dated no farther back than the
dictatorship of Cæsar.

[1123] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 20.--Velleius Paterculus, II. 44.--Appian,
_Civil Wars_, II. 10.--“Capua mura ducta colonia Julia Felix, jussu
imperatoris Cæsaris a xx. viris deducta.” (_Liber Coloniarum_, I. p.
231, edit. Lachmann.)

[1124] Cicero, _Second Philippic_, 39.

[1125] Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 1.--Cicero, _Epistles to Atticus_, II. 19.

[1126] Cicero, _Epistles to Atticus_, II. 7.

[1127] Cicero, _Oration on the Consular Provinces_, 17.

[1128] Cicero, _Familiar Letters_, VIII. 10.

[1129] Appian, _Civil Wars_, II. 13.--_Scholiast_ of Bobbio on
Cicero.--Cicero, _Oration for Plancus_, p. 261, edit. Orelli.

[1130] Cicero, _Oration for Plancus_, 14.

[1131] Cicero, _Letters to Atticus_, II. 1.--Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 20.

[1132] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 20.--Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 7.--Appian, II.
13.

[1133] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 20.

[1134] Cicero, _Second Oration on the Agrarian Law_, 16.--_Scholiast_ of
Bobbio on Cicero’s _Oration In Rege Alexandrino_, p. 350, edit. Orelli.
This Ptolemy Alexas, or Alexander, appears to have been a natural son of
Alexander I., younger brother of Ptolemy Lathyrus, who is also called
Ptolemy Soter II.; in this case he would be, though illegitimate, cousin
of Ptolemy Auletes. He had succeeded Alexander II., legitimate son of
Alexander I., who married his step-mother, Berenice, only legitimate
daughter of Ptolemy Soter II.

[1135] Cicero, _Letters to Atticus_, II. 16.--The King of Egypt gave
nearly 6,000 talents (35 millions of francs) to Cæsar and Pompey.
(Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 14.)

[1136] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 54.--Dio Cassius, XXXIX. 12.--Cæsar’s
expressions (_War of Alexandria_, 33, and _Civil Wars_, III. 107) show
the friendship of Ptolemy Auletes for the Romans.

[1137] Cæsar, _War in Gaul_, I. 35.--Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 35.--Dio
Cassius, XXXVIII. 34.

[1138] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 20.

[1139] Plutarch, _Cato_, 38.--“It was about the sixth hour, when, in the
course of my speech in court for C. Antonius, my colleague, I deplored
certain abuses which prevailed in the State, and which seemed to me to
be closely allied to the case of my unfortunate client. Some
ill-disposed persons reported my words to certain men of high position
in different terms to those I had used; and on the same day, at the
ninth hour, the adoption of Clodius was carried.” (Cicero, _Oration for
his House_, 16.)

[1140] Appian, _Civil Wars_, II. 14.--Dio Cassius, XXXVIII.
12.--Plutarch, _Pompey_, 50.--Cicero, 39.

[1141] Cicero, _Oration for Sestius_, _loc. cit._

[1142] Cicero, writing to Atticus about Cæsar’s first consulship, says:
“Weak as he was then, Cæsar was stronger than the entire State.”
(_Letters to Atticus_, VII. 9.)

[1143] “Bibulus thought to render Cæsar an object of suspicion. He made
him more powerful than before.” (Velleius Paterculus, II. 44.)

[1144] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 20.

[1145] Cæsar rode an extraordinary horse, whose feet were shaped almost
like those of man, the hoof being divided in such a way as to present
the appearance of fingers. He had reared this horse, which had been
foaled in his house, with great care, for the soothsayers had predicted
the empire of the world to its master. Cæsar was the first who tamed it:
before that time the animal had allowed no one to mount it. Finally, he
erected a statue to its honour in front of the Temple of Venus
Genetrix.” (Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 61.)

[1146] “I am quite of opinion that the right of absent candidates to
solicit the offices of the priesthood may be examined by the comitia,
for there is a precedent for that. C. Marius, whilst in Cappadocia, was
elected augur by the law Domitia, and no subsequent law has forbidden
the course; for the Julian Law, the last on the subject of the
priesthood, states: ‘He who is a candidate, or he whose right to become
one has been examined.’” (Cicero, _Letters to Brutus_, I. 5.)

[1147] Cicero, _Oration against Piso_, 37.

[1148] Cicero, _Oration on the Consular Provinces_, 4.--_Oration against
Piso_, 21.

[1149] Cicero, _Oration against Piso_, 16; _Letters to Atticus_, V. 10,
16, 21.--_First Philippic_, 8.

[1150] “You have obtained,” says he, addressing Piso, “a consular
province with no other limits than those of your cupidity, in
contravention of the law of your son-in-law. In fact, by a law of
Cæsar’s, as just as it is salutary, free nations used to enjoy a full
and entire liberty.” (Cicero, _Oration against Piso_, 16.)

[1151] Cicero, _Oration against Piso_, 25; _Familiar Letters_, II. 17;
_Letters to Atticus_, VI. 7.--“I will add, that if the ancient right and
antique usage were still in force, I should not have had to send in my
accounts till after I had discoursed about them, and had them audited
with good humour, and the formalities that our intimacy justifies. What
I would have done in Rome according to the old fashion, I ought,
according to the Julian law, to have done in my province: send in my
accounts on the spot, and only deposit in the treasury an exact copy of
them. I was obliged to follow the provisions of the law. The accounts,
duly audited and compared, were to be deposited in two towns, and I
chose, in the terms of the law, the two most important--Laodicea and
Apamea.... I come to the point of the customary presents. You must know
that I had only included in my list the military tribunes, the prefects,
and the officers of my house (_contubernales_). I even made a blunder. I
thought I was allowed any latitude in point of time. Subsequently I
learnt that the request ought to be sent in during the thirty days
allowed for the settling the accounts. Happily, all is safe as far as
the centurions are concerned, and the officers of the household of the
military tribunes--for the law is silent in regard to the latter.
(Cicero, _Familiar Letters_, V. 20.)

[1152] Dio Cassius, XLIII. 25.

[1153] “I say nothing about the golden crown that has been so long a
torture to you, in your uncertainty as to whether you ought to demand it
or not. In fact, the law of your son-in-law forbad them to give it or
you to receive it, unless your triumph had been granted you.” (Cicero,
_Oration against Piso_, 37.)

[1154] Cicero, _Oration against Piso_, 37; _Letters to Atticus_, V. 10,
16.

[1155] “Take notice, I beg you, that I paid into the hands of the
farmers of the revenues at Ephesus twenty-two millions of sestertii, a
sum to which I have a perfect right, and that Pompey laid hands on the
whole. I have made up my mind on the subject--whether wisely or unwisely
matters not.” (Cicero, _Oration against Piso_, xxxvii. 16.)

[1156] Cicero, _Oration against Piso_, 21.

[1157] Cicero, _Oration on the Consular Provinces_, 2, 3, 4.

[1158] “Is there any position more disgraceful than that of a senator,
who goes on a mission without the slightest authorisation on the part of
the State? It was this kind of mission that I should have abolished
during my consulship, even with the consent of the Senate,
notwithstanding the apparent advantages it held out, had it not been for
the senseless opposition of a tribune. At any rate I caused its duration
to be shortened: formerly it had no limit; now I have reduced it to a
year.” (Cicero, _On Laws_, III. 8.)

[1159] “Moreover, I think that the Julian law has defined the duration
of free embassies: nor will it be easy to extend it.” (Cicero, _Letters
to Atticus_, XV. 11.--Orelli, _Index Legum_, p. 192.)

[1160] Cicero, _Oration for Sestius_, 64. “Liberty torn from nations and
individuals on whom it had been conferred, and whose right had been, by
virtue of the Julian law, so precisely ensured against all hostile
attacks.” (_Oration against Piso_, xxxvii. 16.)

[1161] Cicero, _Familiar Letters_, VIII. 8.--Several of its chapters
have been preserved in the Digest, XLVIII. tit. XI. It is generally
supposed that the fragments inscribed on a tablet of brass in the Museum
of Florence belong to the same law. They have been published by Maffei,
_Museum Veronese_, p. 365, No. 4, and commented on by the celebrated
Marini, in his work on the Monuments of the Fratres Arvales, I. pp. 39,
40, note 44.

[1162] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 42.

[1163] Cicero, _Oration for Rabirimus Postumus_, 4, 5.

[1164] Fragments of the Julian law, _De Repetundis_, preserved in the
_Digest_, XLVIII. tit. XI.

The law is directed against those who, holding a magistracy, an embassy,
or any other office, or forming part of the attendants of these
functionaries, receive money.

They may receive money to any amount from their cousins, their still
nearer relatives, or their wives.

The law includes those who have received money: For speaking in the
Senate or any public assembly; for doing their duty or absenting
themselves from it; for refusing to obey a public order or for exceeding
it; for pronouncing judgment in a criminal or a civil case, or for not
pronouncing it; for condemning or acquitting; for awarding or
withdrawing the subject of a suit; for adjudging or taking an object in
litigation; for appointing a judge or arbitrator, changing him, ordering
him to judge, or for not appointing him or changing him, and not
ordering him to judge; for causing a man to be imprisoned, put in irons,
or set at liberty; for accusing or not accusing; for producing or
suppressing a witness; for recognising as complete an unfinished public
work; for accepting wheat for the use of the State without testing its
good quality; for taking upon himself the maintenance of the public
buildings without a certificate of their good condition; for enlisting a
soldier or discharging him.

All that has been given to the proconsul or prætor contrary to the
provisions of the present law, cannot become his by right of possession.

Sales and leases are declared null and void which have been made, for a
high or a low price, with a view to right of possession by a third.

The magistrates are to abstain from all extortion, and receive as salary
but 100 pieces of gold each year.

The action will lie equally against the heirs of the accused, but only
during the year succeeding his death.

No one who has been condemned under this law can be either judge,
accuser, or witness.

The penalties are exile, banishment to an island, or death, according to
the gravity of the offence.

[1165] Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 8.

[1166] _De alternis consiliis rejiciendis._ (Cicero, _Oration against
Vatinius_, 11.--_Scholiast_ of Bobbio, pp. 321, 323, edit. Orelli.)

[1167] “The citizens who, not being of your order, cannot, thanks to the
Cornelian laws, challenge more than three judges.” (Cicero, _Second
Prosecution of Verres_, II. 31.)

[1168] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 28.

[1169] Cicero, _Familiar Letters_, XIII. 35. “Pompeius Strabo, father of
Pompey the Great, re-peopled Comum. Some time after, Scipio established
3,000 inhabitants there; and, finally, Cæsar sent 5,000 colonists, the
most distinguished of whom were 500 Greeks.” (Strabo, cxix.)

[1170] Cicero, _Letters to Atticus_, II. 18.--Dio Cassius, XXVIII. 8.

[1171] Dio Cassius, XXVIII. 8.--Orelli, _Index Legum_, 178.

[1172] Cicero, in his speech against Vatinius, chap. 6, while
reproaching him for having disregarded the auspices, exclaims, “I ask
you first, Did you refer the matter to the Senate, as Cæsar did?”

“It is true that Cæsar’s acts were, for the benefit of peace, confirmed
by the Senate.” (Cicero, _Second Philippic_, 39.)

[1173] Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 7.

[1174] Cæsar conducted himself with discretion in his consulship.”
(Plutarch, _Crassus_, 17.)

[1175] “Cæsar published laws that were worthy, I will not say of a
consul, but of the most reckless of tribunes.” (Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 14.)

[1176] Cicero, _Letters to Atticus_, VI. 1.--Appian, _Civil Wars_, II.
13.

[1177] Pliny, _Natural History_, XXXIII. 5. Drumann and Mommsen, like
ourselves, refuse their belief to the assertion of Suetonius.

[1178] Plutarch, _Lucullus_, 9.

[1179] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 22.--Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 14.

[1180] Appian, _Civil Wars_, II. 14.

[1181] Plutarch, _Crassus_, 17.

[1182] Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 8.--Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 22.

[1183] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 22.

[1184] Dio Cassius, XL. 34.

[1185] “At the gladiatorial exhibition, the giver of the show and all
his attendants were received with hisses. At the games in honour of
Apollo, the tragedian Diphilus made a pointed allusion to our friend
Pompey in the lines--

    ‘’Tis through our woes that thou art great,’

and was called upon to repeat the words a thousand times. Further on,
the whole assembly cheered him when he said,

    ‘A time shall come, when thou thyself shall weep
     That power of thine so deadly’--

for they are lines that one might have said were written on purpose by
an enemy of Pompey. The words

    ‘If nought, nor law, nor virtue, hold thee back,’

were received with a tempest of acclamation. When Cæsar arrived, he met
with a cold reception. Curio, on the other hand, who followed him, was
saluted with a thousand cheers, as Pompey used to be in the prosperous
times of the Republic. Cæsar was annoyed, and sent off a courier post
haste to Pompey, who is, they say, at Capua.” (Cicero, _Letters to
Atticus_, II. 19.)

[1186] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 9.

[1187] Cicero, _Letters to Atticus_, II. 19.

[1188] “Bibulus is being praised to the skies, I know not why; but he is
being extolled as the one only man who, by temporising, has restored the
State. Pompey, my idol Pompey, has been his own ruin, as I own with
tears to-day; he has no one left who takes his side from affection. I am
afraid that they will find it necessary to resort to intimidation. For
my own part, I forbear, on the one hand, to combat their views on
account of my ancient friendship with them, and, on the other, my
antecedents prevent my approving of what they are about; I preserve a
middle course. The humour of the people is best seen in the theatres.”
(Cicero, _Letters to Atticus_, II. 19, 20, 21.)

[1189] “He keeps prudently in the background, but hopes at a safe
distance to witness their shipwreck.” (Cicero, _Letters to Atticus_, II.
7.)

[1190] Cicero, _Letters to Atticus_, II. 13.

[1191] Cicero, _Letters to Atticus_, II. 17.

[1192] Cicero, _Letters to Atticus_, II. 20, 21.

[1193] Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 11.

[1194] Cicero, _Letters to Atticus_, II. 24.

[1195] Cicero, _Oration against Vatinius_, II.--Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 9.

[1196] Scholiast of Bobbio, _On Cicero’s Oration against Vatinius_, p.
330, edit. Orelli.--Appian, _Civil Wars_, II. 2 and 12.

[1197] Appian, _Civil Wars_, II. 12.

[1198] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 20.

[1199] “He (Ariovistus) knows, by his messengers, that in causing
Cæsar’s death he would gratify a number of great persons at Rome; his
death would win to him their favour and friendship.” (Cæsar, _War in
Gaul_, I. 44.)

[1200] Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 12.

[1201] Cicero, _Letters to Quintus_, I. 2.

[1202] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 23; _Nero_, 2.

[1203] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 23.--Valerius Maximus, III. 7, 9.

[1204] “At the gates of Rome there was a general invested with authority
for many years, and at the head of a great army (_cum magno exercitu_).
Was he my enemy? I do not say he was; but I knew that when people said
so, he was silent.” (Cicero, _Oration after his return in the Senate_,
13.)--“Oppressos, vos, inquit, tenebo _exercitu_ Cæsaris.” (Cicero,
_Letters to Atticus_, II. 16.)--“Clodius said he would invade the curia
at the head of Cæsar’s _army_.” (Cicero, _Oration on the Report of the
Augurs_, 22.)--“Cæsar had already gone out of Rome _with his army_.”
(Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 17.)

[1205] In several passages of Cicero’s letters, Cæsar is represented as
being at the gates of Rome at the head of his army; and yet we know from
his _Commentaries_ that at the beginning of the war in Gaul he had only
four legions, of which one was stationed on the banks of the Rhine, and
the three others at Aquileia, in Illyria. It is, therefore, difficult to
understand how he could have had troops at the gates of Rome, of which
no further mention is made in the course of his campaign. The only way
to reconcile the letters of Cicero with the _Commentaries_ is to allow
that Cæsar, independently of the legions which he found beyond the
frontiers of Italy, summoned to his standard the volunteers and Roman
veterans who were desirous of following him. Mustering at the gate of
Rome, they joined him subsequently in Gaul, and were merged in the
legions. This supposition is the more probable, as in 700, when the
question of re-electing Pompey and Crassus to the consulship was brought
forward, Cæsar sent to Rome a great number of soldiers to vote in the
comitia. Hence, as all the legions had been recruited in Cisalpine Gaul,
the inhabitants of which did not possess the right of Roman city, he
must have had other Roman citizens in his army. Besides, if Cæsar
appealed to the veterans, he only followed the example of nearly all the
Roman generals, and among others of Scipio, Flamininus, and Marius. In
fact, when Cornelius Scipio departed for the war against Antiochus,
there were five thousand volunteers at the gates of Rome--citizens as
well as allies--who had served in all the campaigns of his brother,
Scipio Africanus. (Titus Livius, XXXVII. 4.)--“When Flamininus left to
join the legions in Macedonia, he took with him three thousand veterans
who had fought against Hannibal and Hasdrubal.” (Plutarch, _Flamininus_,
III.)--“Marius, before leaving for the war against Jugurtha, appealed to
all the bravest soldiers of Latium. He knew most of them for having
served under his eyes, and the rest by reputation. By force of
solicitation, he obliged even the veterans to go with him.” (Sallust,
_War of Jugurtha_, LXXXIV.)

[1206] “At the present moment he (Clodius) is agitating and raging; he
knows not what he wants; he makes hostile demonstrations on this side
and on that, and seems to intend to leave to chance where he shall
strike. When he gives a thought to the unpopularity of the present state
of things, you would say he was going to fly at the authors of it; but
when he sees on which side are the means of action and the armed force,
he turns round against us.” (Cicero, _Letters to Atticus_, II. 22.)

[1207] These clubs (_collegia compitalitia_) had an organisation which
was almost military, divided into districts, and composed exclusively of
the proletaries. (See Mommsen, _Roman History_, III. 290.)--“The slaves
enrolled under pretence of forming corporations.” (Cicero, _Oration
after his return in the Senate_, 13.)

[1208] An exception, however, was made in 690, in favour of the
corporations of artisans. (Asconius, _In Pisone_, IV. p. 7; _In
Corneliana_, p. 75, edit. Orelli.)

[1209] Cicero, _Oration against Piso_, 4.--Asconius, _On the Oration of
Cicero against Piso_, pp. 7, 8, edit. Orelli.--Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 13.

[1210] Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 13.

[1211] Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 17.

[1212] “I receive from Cæsar the most flattering invitations, asking me
to join him as lieutenant.” (Cicero, _Letters to Atticus_, II. 17.)--“He
has got my enemy (Clodius) transferred to the plebeian order: either
because he was irritated to see that even his kindness could not
persuade me to join his side, or because he yielded to the urgency of
others. My refusal could not have been regarded as an insult, for
subsequently to it he advised me, nay, even entreated me, to serve him
as lieutenant. I did not accept this office, not because I thought it
beneath me, but because I was far from suspecting that the State could
possibly have, after Cæsar, any consuls so infamous as these (Piso and
Gabinius).” (Cicero, _Oration about the Consular Provinces_, 17.)

[1213] “Thanks to the pains I take, my popularity and my strength
increase daily. I do not meddle with politics in any way--not the least.
My house is crowded; my friends gather round me when I go abroad; my
consulate seems to be beginning afresh. It rains protestations of
attachment; and my confidence is such that at times I long for the
strife, which I ought always to dread.” (Cicero, _Letters to Atticus_,
II. 22.)--“Let Clodius bring his accusation. Italy will rise as one
man.” (Cicero, _Letters to Quintus_, I. 2.)

[1214] Cicero, _Oration against Vatinius_, 16.

[1215] Plutarch, _Pompey_, 48.

[1216] Plutarch, _Cicero_, 41.

[1217] Velleius Paterculus, II. 45.

[1218] Suetonius, XXIII.

[1219] “The rumours which preceded Pompey had caused great consternation
there, because it had been said that he meant to enter the city with his
army.” (Plutarch, _Pompey_, 45.)--“However, every one dreaded Pompey in
the greatest degree; no one knew whether he would disband his army or
not.” (Dio Cassius, XXXVII. 44.)

       *       *       *       *       *

Typographical errors corrected by the etext transcriber:

considererable=> considerable {pg 109}

acquiaed=> acquired {pg 118}

in Alterthum=> im Alterthum {pg 169 fn. 508}

There was, as we have seen, two peoples=> There were, as we have seen,
two peoples {pg 227}

Titus Livis=> Titus Livius {pg 256 fn. 691}

astembly=> assembly {pg 427}

ensreaties=> entreaties {pg 427}





*** End of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "History of Julius Caesar Vol. 1 of 2" ***

Doctrine Publishing Corporation provides digitized public domain materials.
Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians.
This effort is time consuming and expensive, so in order to keep providing
this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties,
including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Doctrine Publishing
Corporation's ISYS search for use by individuals, and we request that you
use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort
to Doctrine Publishing's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a
large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of
public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Keep it legal -  Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for
ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because
we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States,
that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries.
Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we
can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is
allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Doctrine Publishing
ISYS search  means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world.
Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.

About ISYS® Search Software
Established in 1988, ISYS Search Software is a global supplier of enterprise
search solutions for business and government.  The company's award-winning
software suite offers a broad range of search, navigation and discovery
solutions for desktop search, intranet search, SharePoint search and embedded
search applications.  ISYS has been deployed by thousands of organizations
operating in a variety of industries, including government, legal, law
enforcement, financial services, healthcare and recruitment.



Home