Pinnock's improved edition of Dr. Goldsmith's History of Rome /

Questions for Examination.

1. What is the most probable account given of the origin of the distinction between the patricians and the plebeians at Rome?

2. How did Romulus subdivide the Roman tribes?

3. By what regulations were the gentes governed?

4. Who were the chiefs of the gentes?

5. What was the condition of the clients?

6. By whom were alterations made in the number and constitution of the senate?

7. What assembly was peculiar to the patricians?

8. What were the powers of the Roman kings?

9. What great change was made in the Roman constitution by Servius Tullius?

10. For what purpose was the census instituted?

11. How were votes taken in the comitia centuriata?

12. Were the designs of Servius frustrated?

13. What was the Roman law respecting debtors?

14. When did the Roman power decline?

15. What changes were made in the constitution of the equestrian rank?

16. What change was made after the abolition of royalty?

17. How were the liberties of the people secured?

18. Why was the office of dictator appointed?

19. How did the plebeians obtain the protection of magistrates chosen from their own order?

20. What additional triumphs were obtained by the plebeians?

21. What was the consequence of the establishment of freedom?

22. For what purpose was the censorship instituted?

23. What change took place in the constitution of the senate?[Pg. 37]

FOOTNOTES:

CHAPTER V.

THE ROMAN TENURE OF LAND—COLONIAL GOVERNMENT.

Each rules his race, his neighbour not his care,
Heedless of others, to his own severe.—Homer.

[As this chapter is principally designed for advanced students, it has not been thought necessary to add questions for examination.

The contests respecting agrarian laws occupy so large a space in Roman history, and are so liable to be misunderstood, that it is necessary to explain their origin at some length. According to an almost universal custom, the right of conquest was supposed to involve the property of the land. Thus the Normans who assisted William I. were supposed to have obtained a right to the possessions of the Saxons; and in a later age, the Irish princes, whose estates were not confirmed by a direct grant from the English crown, were exposed to forfeiture when legally summoned to prove their titles. The extensive acquisitions made by the Romans, were either formed into extensive national domains, or divided into small lots among the poorer classes. The usufruct of the domains was monopolized by the patricians who rented them from the state; the smaller lots were assigned to the plebeians, subject to a tax called tribute, but not to rent. An agrarian law was a proposal to make an assignment of portions of the public lands to the people, and to limit the quantity of national land that could be farmed by any particular patrician.[1] Such a law may have been frequently impolitic, because it may have disturbed ancient possessions, but it could never have been unjust; for the property of the land was absolutely fixed in the state. The lands held by the patricians, being divided into extensive tracts, were principally used for pasturage; the small lots assigned to the plebeians were, of necessity, devoted to agriculture. Hence arose the first great cause of hostility between the two orders; the patricians were naturally eager to extend their possessions in the public domains, which enabled them to provide for their numerous clients, and in remote districts they frequently wrested the estates from the free proprietors in their neighbourhood; the plebeians, on[Pg. 38] the other hand, deemed that they had the best right to the land purchased by their blood, and saw with just indignation, the fruits of victory monopolized by a single order in the state. The tribute paid by the plebeians increased this hardship, for it was a land-tax levied on estates, and consequently fell most heavily on the smaller proprietors; indeed, in many cases, the possessors of the national domains paid nothing.

From all this it is evident that an agrarian law only removed tenants who held from the state at will, and did not in any case interfere with the sacred right of property; but it is also plain that such a change must have been frequently inconvenient to the individual in possession. It also appears, that had not agrarian laws been introduced, the great body of the plebeians would have become the clients of the patricians, and the form of government would have been a complete oligarchy.

The chief means to which the Romans, even from the earliest ages, had recourse for securing their conquests, and at the same time relieving the poorer classes of citizens, was the establishment of colonies in the conquered states. The new citizens formed a kind of garrison, and were held together by a constitution formed on the model of the parent state. From what has been said above, it is evident that a law for sending out a colony was virtually an agrarian law, since lands were invariably assigned to those who were thus induced to abandon their homes.

The relations between Rome and the subject cities in Italy were very various. Some, called municipia, were placed in full possession of the rights of Roman citizens, but could not in all cases vote in the comitia. The privileges of the colonies were more restricted, for they were absolutely excluded from the Roman comitia and magistracies. The federative[2] states enjoyed their own constitutions, but were bound to supply the Romans with tribute and auxiliary forces. Finally, the subject states were deprived of their internal constitutions, and were governed by annual prefects chosen in Rome.

Before discussing the subject of the Roman constitution, we must observe that it was, like our own, gradually formed by practice; there was no single written code like those of[Pg. 39] Athens and Sparta, but changes were made whenever they were required by circumstances; before the plebeians obtained an equality of civil rights, the state neither commanded respect abroad, nor enjoyed tranquillity at home. The patricians sacrificed their own real advantages, as well as the interests of their country, to maintain an ascendancy as injurious to themselves, as it was unjust to the other citizens. But no sooner had the agrarian laws established a more equitable distribution of property, and other popular laws opened the magistracy to merit without distinction of rank, than the city rose to empire with unexampled rapidity.

FOOTNOTES:

CHAPTER VI.

THE ROMAN RELIGION.

First to the gods 'tis fitting to prepare
The due libation, and the solemn prayer;
For all mankind alike require their grace,
All born to want; a miserable race.—Homer.

1. We have shown that the Romans were, most probably, a people compounded of the Latins, the Sabines, and the Tuscans; and that the first and last of these component parts were themselves formed from Pelasgic and native tribes. The original deities[1] worshipped by the Romans were derived from the joint traditions of all these tribes; but the religious institutions and ceremonies were almost wholly borrowed from the Tuscans. Unlike the Grecian mythology, with which, in later ages, it was united, the Roman system of religion had all the gloom and mystery of the eastern superstitions; their gods were objects of fear rather than love, and were worshipped more to avert the consequences of their anger than to conciliate their favour. A consequence of this system was, the institution of human sacrifices, which were not quite disused in Rome until a late period of the republic.

2. The religious institutions of the Romans form an essential part of their civil government; every public act, whether of legislation or election, was connected with certain determined forms, and thus received the sanction of a higher power. Every public assembly was opened by the[Pg. 40] magistrate and augurs taking the auspices, or signs by which they believed that the will of the gods could be determined; and if any unfavourable omen was discovered, either then or at any subsequent time, the assembly was at once dismissed. 3. The right of taking auspices was long the peculiar privilege of the patricians, and frequently afforded them pretexts for evading the demands of the plebeians; when a popular law was to be proposed, it was easy to discover some unfavourable omen which prohibited discussion; when it was evident that the centuries were about to annul some patrician privilege, the augurs readily saw or heard some signal of divine wrath, which prevented the vote from being completed. It was on this account that the plebeians would not consent to place the comitia tributa under the sanction of the auspices.

4. The augurs were at first only three in number, but they were in later ages increased to fifteen, and formed into a college. Nothing of importance was transacted without their concurrence in the earlier ages of the republic, but after the second punic war, their influence was considerably diminished.[2] 5. They derived omens from five sources: 1, from celestial phenomena, such as thunder, lightning, comets, &c.; 2, from the flight of birds; 3, from the feeding of the sacred chickens; 4, from the appearance of a beast in any unusual place; 5, from any accident that occurred unexpectedly.

6. The usual form of taking an augury was very solemn; the augur ascended a tower, bearing in his hand a curved stick called a lituus. He turned his face to the east, and marked out some distant objects as the limits within which[Pg. 41] he would make his observations, and divided mentally the enclosed space into four divisions. He next, with covered head, offered sacrifices to the gods, and prayed that they would vouchsafe some manifestation of their will. After these preliminaries he made his observations in silence, and then announced the result to the expecting people.

7. The Arusp'ices were a Tuscan order of priests, who attempted to predict futurity by observing the beasts offered in sacrifice. They formed their opinions most commonly from inspecting the entrails, but there was no circumstance too trivial to escape their notice, and which they did not believe in some degree portentous. The arusp'ices were most commonly consulted by individuals; but their opinions, as well as those of the augurs, were taken on all important affairs of state. The arusp'ices seem not to have been appointed officially, nor are they recognised as a regular order of priesthood.

8. The pontiffs and fla'mens, as the superior priests were designated, enjoyed great privileges, and were generally men of rank. When the republic was abolished, the emperors assumed the office of pontifex maximus, or chief pontiff, deeming its powers too extensive to be entrusted to a subject.

9. The institution of vestal virgins was older than the city itself, and was regarded by the Romans as the most sacred part of their religious system. In the time of Numa there were but four, but two more were added by Tarquin; probably the addition made by Tarquin was to give the tribe of the Lu'ceres a share in this important priesthood. The duty of the vestal virgins was to keep the sacred fire that burned on the altar of Vesta from being extinguished; and to preserve a certain sacred pledge on which the very existence of Rome was supposed to depend. What this pledge was we have no means of discovering; some suppose that it was the Trojan Palla'dium, others, with more probability, some traditional mystery brought by the Pelas'gi from Samothrace.

10. The privileges conceded to the vestals were very great; they had the most honourable seats at public games and festivals; they were attended by a lictor with fasces like the magistrates; they were provided with chariots when they required them; and they possessed the power of pardoning any criminal whom they met on the way to execution, if they declared that the meeting was accidental. The magistrates[Pg. 42] were obliged to salute them as they passed, and the fasces of the consul were lowered to do them reverence. To withhold from them marks of respect subjected the offender to public odium; a personal insult was capitally punished. They possessed the exclusive privilege of being buried within the city; an honour which the Romans rarely extended to others.

11. The vestals were bound by a vow of perpetual virginity, and a violation of this oath was cruelly punished. The unfortunate offender was buried alive in a vault constructed beneath the Fo'rum by the elder Tarquin. The terror of such a dreadful fate had the desired effect; there were only eighteen instances of incontinence among the vestals, during the space of a thousand years.

12. The mixture of religion with civil polity, gave permanence and stability to the Roman institutions; notwithstanding all the changes and revolutions in the government the old forms were preserved; and thus, though the city was taken by Porsenna, and burned by the Gauls, the Roman constitution survived the ruin, and was again restored to its pristine vigour.

13. The Romans always adopted the gods of the conquered nations, and, consequently, when their empire became very extensive, the number of deities was absurdly excessive, and the variety of religious worship perfectly ridiculous. The rulers of the world wanted the taste and ingenuity of the lively Greeks, who accommodated every religious system to their own, and from some real or fancied resemblance, identified the gods of Olym'pus with other nations. The Romans never used this process of assimilation, and, consequently, introduced so much confusion into their mythology, that philosophers rejected the entire system. This circumstance greatly facilitated the progress of Christianity, whose beautiful simplicity furnished a powerful contrast to the confused and cumbrous mass of divinities, worshipped in the time of the emperors.

Questions for Examination.

1. How did the religion of the Romans differ from that of the Greeks?

2. Was the Roman religion connected with the government?

3. How was the right of taking the Auspices abused?

4. Who were the augurs?[Pg. 43]

5. From what did the augurs take omens?

6. What were the forms used in taking the auspices?

7. Who were the aruspices?

8. What other priests had the Romans?

9. What was the duty of the vestal virgins?

10. Did the vestals enjoy great privileges?

11. How were the vestals punished for a breach of their vows?

12. Why was the Roman constitution very permanent?

13. Whence arose the confusion in the religious system of the Romans?

FOOTNOTES:

CHAPTER VII.

THE ROMAN ARMY AND NAVY.

Is the soldier found
In the riot and waste which he spreads around?
The sharpness makes him—the dash, the tact,
The cunning to plan, and the spirit to act.—Lord L. Gower.

1. It has been frequently remarked by ancient writers that the strength of a free state consists in its infantry; and, on the other hand, that when the infantry in a state become more valuable than the cavalry, the power of the aristocracy is diminished, and equal rights can no longer be withheld from the people. The employment of mercenary soldiers in modern times renders these observations no longer applicable; but in the military states of antiquity, where the citizens themselves served as soldiers, there are innumerable examples of this mutual connection between political and military systems. It is further illustrated in the history of the middle ages; for we can unquestionably trace the origin of free institutions in Europe to the time when the hardy infantry of the commons were first found able to resist the charges of the brilliant chivalry of the nobles. 2. Rome was, from the very commencement, a military state; as with the Spartans, all their civil institutions had a direct reference to warlike affairs; their public assemblies were marshalled like armies; the order of their line of battle was regulated by the distinction of classes in the state. It is, therefore, natural to conclude, that the tactics of the Roman armies underwent important changes when the revolutions mentioned in the preceding chapters were effected, though we cannot trace the alterations with precision, because no historians appeared until the military system of the Romans had been brought to perfection.

3. The strength of the Tuscans consisted principally in their cavalry; and if we judge from the importance attributed to the equestrian rank in the earliest ages, we may[Pg. 44] suppose that the early Romans esteemed this force equally valuable. It was to Ser'vius Tul'lius, the great patron of the commonalty, that the Romans were indebted for the formation of a body of infantry, which, after the lapse of centuries, received so many improvements that it became invincible.

4. The ancient battle array of the Greeks was the phalanx; the troops were drawn up in close column, the best armed being in front. The improvements made in this system of tactics by Philip, are recorded in Grecian history; they chiefly consisted in making the evolutions of the entire body more manageable, and counteracting the difficulties which attended the motions of this cumbrous mass.

5. The Romans originally used the phalanx; and the lines were formed according to the classes determined by the centuries. Those who were sufficiently wealthy to purchase a full suit of armour, formed the front ranks; those who could only purchase a portion of the defensive weapons, filled the centre; and the rear was formed by the poorer classes, who scarcely required any armour, being protected by the lines in front. From this explanation, it is easy to see why, in the constitution of the centuries by Servius Tullius, the first class were perfectly covered with mail, the second had helmets and breast-plates but no protection for the body, the third, neither a coat of mail, nor greaves. 6. The defects of this system are sufficiently obvious; an unexpected attack on the flanks, the breaking of the line by rugged and uneven ground, and a thousand similar accidents exposed the unprotected portions of the army to destruction besides, a line with files ten deep was necessarily slow in its movements and evolutions. Another and not less important defect was, that the whole should act together; and consequently, there were few opportunities for the display of individual bravery.

7. It is not certainly known who was the great commander that substituted the living body of the Roman legion for this inanimate mass; but there is some reason to believe that this wondrous improvement was effected by Camil'lus. Every legion was in itself an army, combining the advantages of every variety of weapon, with the absolute perfection of a military division.

8. The legion consisted of three lines or battalions; the Hasta'ti, the Prin'cipes, and the Tria'rii; there were besides two classes, which we may likewise call battalions, [Pg. 45] the Rora'rii, or Velites, consisting of light armed troops, and the Accen'si or supernumeraries, who were ready to supply the place of those that fell. Each of the two first battalions contained fifteen manip'uli, consisting of sixty privates, commanded by two centurions, and having each a separate standard (vexil'lum) borne by one of the privates called Vexilla'rius; the manip'uli in the other battalions were fewer in number, but contained a greater portion of men; so that, in round numbers, nine hundred men may be allowed to each battalion, exclusive of officers. If the officers and the troop of three hundred cavalry be taken into account, we shall find that the legion, as originally constituted, contained about five thousand men. The Romans, however, did not always observe these exact proportions, and the number of soldiers in a legion varied at different times of their history.[1]

9. A cohort was formed by taking a manipulus from each of the battalions; more frequently two manipuli were taken, and the cohort then contained six hundred men. The cavalry were divided into tur'mæ, consisting each of thirty men.

10. A battle was usually commenced by the light troops, who skirmished with missile weapons; the hasta'ti then advanced to the charge, and if defeated, fell back on the prin'cipes; if the enemy proved still superior, the two front lines retired to the ranks of the tria'rii, which being composed of veteran troops, generally turned the scale. But this order was not always observed; the number of divisions in the legion made it extremely flexible, and the commander-in-chief could always adapt the form of his line to circumstances.

11. The levies of troops were made in the Cam'pus Mar'tius, by the tribunes appointed to command the legions. The tribes which were to supply soldiers were determined by lot, and as each came forward, the tribunes, in their turn, selected such as seemed best fitted for war. Four legions was most commonly the number in an army. When the selected individuals had been enrolled as soldiers, one was chosen from each legion to take the military oath of obedience to the generals; the other soldiers swore in succession, to observe the oath taken by their foreman. [Pg. 46]

12. Such was the sacredness of this obligation, that even in the midst of the political contests by which the city was distracted, the soldiers, though eager to secure the freedom of their country, would not attempt to gain it by mutiny against their commanders. On this account the senate frequently declared war, and ordered a levy as an expedient to prevent the enactment of a popular law, and were of course opposed by the tribunes of the people.

13. There was no part of the Roman discipline more admirable than their form of encampment. No matter how fatigued the soldiers might be by a long march, or how harassed by a tedious battle, the camp was regularly measured out and fortified by a rampart and ditch, before any one sought sleep or refreshment. Careful watch was kept during the night, and frequent picquets sent out to guard against a surprise, and to see that the sentinels were vigilant. As the arrangement in every camp was the same, every soldier knew his exact position, and if an alarm occurred, could easily find the rallying point of his division. To this excellent system Polyb'ius attributes the superiority of the Romans over the Greeks; for the latter scarcely ever fortified their camp, but chose some place naturally strong, and did not keep their ranks distinct.

14. The military age extended from the sixteenth to the forty-sixth year; and under the old constitution no one could hold a civic office who had not served ten campaigns. The horsemen were considered free after serving through ten campaigns, but the foot had to remain during twenty. Those who had served out their required time were free for the rest of their lives, unless the city was attacked, when all under the age of sixty were obliged to arm in its defence.

15. In the early ages, when wars were begun and ended in a few days, the soldiers received no pay; but when the conquest of distant countries became the object of Roman ambition, it became necessary to provide for the pay and support of the army. This office was given to the quæstors, who were generally chosen from the younger nobility, and were thus prepared for the higher magistracies by acquiring a practical acquaintance with finance.

16. The soldiers were subject to penalties of life and limb at the discretion of the commander-in-chief, without the intervention of a court-martial; but it deserves to be recorded that this power was rarely abused. 17. There were several species of rewards to excite emulation; the most honourable[Pg. 47] were, the civic crown of gold to him who had saved the life of a citizen; the mural crown to him who had first scaled the wall of a besieged town; a gilt spear to him who had severely wounded an enemy; but he who had slain and spoiled his foe, received, if a horseman, an ornamental trapping; if a foot soldier, a goblet.

18. The lower classes of the centuries were excused from serving in the army, except on dangerous emergencies; but they supplied sailors to the navy. We learn, from a document preserved by Polyb'ius, that the Romans were a naval power at a very early age. 19. This interesting record is the copy of a treaty concluded with the Carthaginians, in the year after the expulsion of the kings. It is not mentioned by the Roman historians, because it decisively establishes a fact which they studiously labour to conceal, that is, the weakness and decline of the Roman power during the two centuries that followed the abolition of royalty, when the power of the state was monopolized by a vile aristocracy. In this treaty Rome negociates for the cities of La'tium, as her dependencies, just as Carthage does for her subject colonies. But in the course of the following century, Rome lost her supremacy over the Latin cities, and being thus nearly excluded from the coast, her navy was ruined.

20. At the commencement of the first Punic war, the Romans once more began to prepare a fleet, and luckily obtained an excellent model in a Carthaginian ship that had been driven ashore in a storm. 21. The vessels used for war, were either long ships or banked galleys; the former were not much used in the Punic wars, the latter being found more convenient. The rowers of these sat on banks or benches, rising one above the other, like stairs; and from the number of these benches, the galleys derived their names; that which had three rows of benches was called a trireme; that which had four, a quadrireme; and that which had five, a quinquireme. Some vessels had turrets erected in them for soldiers and warlike engines; others had sharp prows covered with brass, for the purpose of dashing against and sinking their enemies.

22. The naval tactics of the ancients were very simple; the ships closed very early, and the battle became a contest between single vessels. It was on this account that the personal valour of the Romans proved more than a match[Pg. 48] for the naval skill of the Carthaginians, and enabled them to, add the empire of the sea to that of the land.

23. Before concluding this chapter, we must notice the triumphal processions granted to victorious commanders. Of these there are two kinds; the lesser triumph, called an ovation,[2] and the greater, called, emphatically, the triumph. In the former, the victorious general entered the city on foot, wearing a crown of myrtle; in the latter, he was borne in a chariot, and wore a crown of laurel. The ovation was granted to such generals as had averted a threatened war, or gained some great advantage without inflicting great loss on the enemy. The triumph was allowed only to those who had gained some signal victory, which decided the fate of a protracted war. The following description, extracted from Plutarch, of the great triumph granted to Paulus Æmilius, for his glorious termination of the Macedonian war, will give the reader an adequate idea of the splendour displayed by the Romans on these festive occasions.

The people erected scaffolds in the forum and circus, and all other parts of the city where they could best behold the pomp. The spectators were clad in white garments; all the temples were open, and full of garlands and perfumes; and the ways cleared and cleansed by a great many officers, who drove away such as thronged the passage, or straggled up and down.

The triumph lasted three days; on the first, which was scarce long enough for the sight, were to be seen the statues, pictures, and images of an extraordinary size, which were taken from the enemy, drawn upon seven hundred and fifty chariots. On the second was carried, in a great many wains, the fairest and richest armour of the Macedonians, both of brass and steel, all newly furbished and glittering: which, although piled up with the greatest art and order, yet seemed to be tumbled on heaps carelessly and by chance; helmets were thrown on shields, coats of mail upon greaves; Cretan targets and Thracian bucklers, and quivers of arrows, lay huddled among the horses' bits; and through these appeared the points of naked swords, intermixed with long spears. All these arms were tied together with such a just liberty, that they knocked against one another as they were drawn[Pg. 49] along, and made a harsh and terrible noise, so that the very spoils of the conquered could not be beheld without dread. After these wagons loaded with armour, there followed three thousand men, who carried the silver that was coined, in seven hundred and fifty vessels, each of which weighed three talents, and was carried by four men. Others brought silver bowls, and goblets, and cups, all disposed in such order as to make the best show, and all valuable, as well for their magnitude as the thickness of their engraved work. On the third day, early in the morning, first came the trumpeters, who did not sound as they were wont in a procession or solemn entry, but such a charge as the Romans use when they encourage their soldiers to fight. Next followed young men, girt about with girdles curiously wrought, who led to the sacrifice one hundred and twenty stalled oxen, with their horns gilded, and their heads adorned with ribbons and garlands, and with these were boys that carried dishes of silver and gold. After these was brought the gold coin, which was divided into vessels that weighed three talents each, similar to those that contained the silver; they were in number fourscore, wanting three. These were followed by those that brought the consecrated bowl which Emil'ius caused to be made, that weighed ten talents, and was adorned with precious stones. Then were exposed to view the cups of Antig'onus and Seleu'cus, and such as were made after the fashion invented by The'ricles, and all the gold plate that was used at Per'seus's table. Next to these came Per'seus's chariot, in which his armour was placed, and on that his diadem. After a little intermission the king's children were led captives, and with them a train of nurses, masters, and governors, who all wept, and stretched forth their hands to the spectators, and taught the little infants to beg and intreat their compassion. There were two sons and a daughter, who, by reason of their tender age, were altogether insensible of the greatness of their misery; which insensibility of their condition rendered it much more deplorable, insomuch that Per'seus himself was scarce regarded as he went along, whilst pity had fixed the eyes of the Romans upon the infants, and many of them could not forbear tears; all beheld the sight with a mixture of sorrow and joy until the children were past. After his children and attendants came Per'seus himself, clad in black, and wearing slippers after the fashion of his country; he looked like one altogether astonished, and deprived of reason, through the [Pg. 50] greatness of his misfortune. Next followed a great company of his friends and familiars, whose countenances were disfigured with grief, and who testified, to all that beheld them, by their tears and their continual looking upon Per'seus, that it was his hard fortune they so much lamented, and that they were regardless of their own. After these were carried four hundred crowns of gold, sent from the cities by their respective ambassadors to Emil'ius, as a reward due to his valour. Then he himself came, seated on a chariot magnificently, adorned, (a man worthy to be beheld even without these ensigns of power) clad in a garland of purple interwoven with gold, and with a laurel branch in his right hand. All the army in like manner, with boughs of laurel in their hands, and divided into bands and companies, followed the chariot of their commander; some singing odes according to the usual custom, mingled with raillery; others songs of triumph and the praises of Emil'ius's deeds, who was admired and accounted happy by all men, yet unenvied by every one that was good.

Questions for Examination.

1. What political change has frequently resulted from improved military tactics?

2. Was Rome a military state?

3. Why are we led to conclude that the Romans considered cavalry an important force?

4. By whom was the phalanx instituted?

5. How was the phalanx formed?

6. What were the defects of the phalanx?

7. By whom was the legion substituted for the phalanx?

8. Of what troops was a legion composed?

9. What was a cohort?

10. What was the Roman form of battle?

11. In what manner was an army levied?

12. How was the sanctity of the military oath proved?

13. What advantages resulted from the Roman form of encampment?

14. How long was the citizens liable to be called upon as soldiers?

15. How was the army paid?

16. What power had the general?

17. On what occasion did the soldiers receive rewards?

18. How was the navy supplied with sailors?

19. What fact concealed by the Roman historians is established by Polybius?

20. How did the Romans form a fleet?

[Pg. 51] 21. What were the several kinds of ships?

22. What naval tactics did the Romans use?

23. How did an ovation differ from a triumph?

24. Can you give a general description of a triumph?

FOOTNOTES:

CHAPTER VIII.

ROMAN LAW—FINANCE.

Then equal laws were planted in the state, To shield alike the humble and the great.—Cooke.

1. In the early stages of society, little difficulty is felt in providing for the administration of justice, because the subjects of controversy are plain and simple, such as any man of common sense may determine; but as civilization advances, the relations between men become more complicated, property assumes innumerable forms, and the determination of questions resulting from these changes, becomes a matter of no ordinary difficulty. In the first ages of the republic, the consuls were the judges in civil and criminal matters, as the kings had previously been;[1] but as the state increased, a new class of magistrates, called prætors, was appointed to preside in the courts of law. Until the age of the decemvirs, there was no written code to regulate their decisions; and even after the laws of the twelve tables had been established, there was no perfect system of law, for the enactments in that code were brief, and only asserted a few leading principles. 2. The Roman judges did not, however, decide altogether according to their own caprice; they were bound to regard the principles that had been established by the decisions of former judges; and consequently, a system of law was formed similar to the common law of England, founded on precedent and analogy. In the later ages of the empire, the number of law-books and records became so enormous, that it was no longer possible to determine the law with accuracy, and the contradictory decisions made at different periods, greatly increased the uncertainty. To remedy this evil, the emperor Justinian caused the entire to be digested into a uniform system, and his code still forms the basis of the civil law in Europe.

[Pg. 52] 3. The trials in courts refer either to the affairs of the state, or to the persons or properties of individuals, and are called state, criminal, or civil trials. The two former are the most important in regard to history.

4. The division of the Roman people into two nations, made the classification of state offences very difficult. In general, the council of the patricians judged any plebeian who was accused of conspiring against their order; and the plebeians on the other hand, brought a patrician accused of having violated their privileges before their own tribunal. 5. Disobedience to the commands of the chief magistrate was punished by fine and imprisonment, and from his sentence there was no appeal; but if the consul wished to punish any person by stripes or death, the condemned man had the right of appealing to the general assembly of his peers.[2] 6. To prevent usurpation, it was established that every person who exercised an authority not conferred on him by the people, should be devoted as a victim to the gods.[3] This, was at once a sentence of outlawry and excommunication; the Criminal might be slain by any person-with impunity, and all connection with him was shunned as pollution. 7. No magistrate could legally be brought to trial during the continuance of his office, but when his time was expired, he could be accused before the general assembly of the people, if he had transgressed the legal limits of his authority. The punishment in this case was banishment; the form of the sentence declared that the criminal "should be deprived of fire and water;" that is, the citizens, were prohibited from supplying him with the ordinary necessaries of life.

8. In all criminal trials, and in all cases where damages were sought to be recovered for wrongs or injuries, the prætor impanelled a jury, but the number of which it was[Pg. 53] to consist seems to have been left to his discretion. The jurors were called ju'dices, and the opinion of the majority decided the verdict. Where the votes were equal, the traverser or defendant escaped; and when half the jury assessed damages at one amount, and half at another, the defendant paid only the lesser sum. In disputes about property, the prætor seldom called for the assistance of a jury.

9. The general form of all trials was the same; the prosecutor or plaintiff made his complaint, and the defendant was compelled either to find sufficient bail, or to go into prison until the day of trial. On the appointed day, the plaintiff, or his advocate, stated his case, and proceeded to establish it by evidence; the defendant replied; and the jury then gave their verdict by ballot.

10. In cases tried before the general assembly of the people, it was allowed to make use of artifices in order to conciliate the popular favour. The accused and his friends put on mourning robes to excite pity; they went into the most public places and took every opportunity of showing their respect for popular power. When Cicero was accused by Clo'dius for having illegally put to death the associates of Cataline, the entire senatorian rank changed their robes to show the deep interest they felt in his fate. At these great trials, the noblest specimens of forensic eloquence were displayed by the advocates of the accuser and the accused; but the decisions were usually more in accordance with the spirit of party than strict justice.

11. The accused, however, might escape, if he could prevail on any of the tribunes to interpose in his behalf, or the accuser to relinquish his charge; if unfavourable omens appeared during the trial, it was usually adjourned, or sometimes the accusation withdrawn; and up to the very moment of the commencement of the trial, the criminal had the option of escaping a heavier penalty by going into voluntary exile.

12. The punishments to which state criminals were sentenced, were usually, in capital cases, precipitation from the Tarpeian rock, beheading, or strangulation in prison; when life was spared, the penalties were either exile or fine. Under the emperors severer punishments were introduced, such as exposure to wild beasts, or burning alive; and torture, which, under the republic, could not be inflicted on free citizens, was exercised unsparingly.

13. The punishment of parricides was curious; the criminal[Pg. 54] having been beaten with rods, was sown up in a sack together with a serpent, an ape and a cock, and thrown either into the sea or a river, as if even the inanimate carcase of such a wretch would pollute the earth.

14. Masters had an absolute, authority over their slaves, extending to life or limb; and in the earlier ages patrons had similar power over their clients. The condition of slaves in Rome was most miserable, especially in the later ages; they were subject to the most excruciating tortures, and when capitally punished, were generally crucified. Except in this single particular, the Roman criminal code, was very lenient and sparing of human life. This was chiefly owing to the exertions of the plebeians, for the patricians always patronized a more sanguinary policy; and could do so the more easily, as the aristocracy retained their monopoly of the administration of justice much longer than that of civil government.

15. The Roman system of finance was at first very simple, the public revenue being derived from a land-tax on Quiritary property,[4] and the tithes of the public lands; but after the conquest of Macedon, the revenues from other sources were so abundant, that tribute was no longer demanded from Roman citizens. These sources were:—

1. The tribute of the allies, which was a property tax, differing in different places according to the terms of their league.

2. The tribute of the provinces, which was both a property and poll-tax.

3. Revenue of the national domains leased out by the censors.

4. Revenue from the mines, especially from the Spanish silver-mines.

5. Duties on imports and exports. And,

6. A duty on enfranchised slaves.

The receipts were all paid into the national treasury, and the senate had the uncontrolled direction of the general expenditure, as well as the regulation of the amount of imposts. The officers employed to manage the affairs of the revenue, were the quæstors, chosen annually, and under them the scribes, who held their situations for life. Those who[Pg. 55] farmed the public revenue were called-publicans, and were generally persons of equestrian dignity; but in the remote provinces they frequently sublet to other collectors, who were guilty of great extortion. The latter are the publicans mentioned in the New Testament.