A RETROSPECTIVE VIEW OF THE REPUBLICAN CONSTITUTION
Shortly before the year 500 B.C. the change was accomplished which
transformed the Roman State from a monarchy or military dictatorship (in
which the dictator was confronted by the influence of a powerful council
drawn from the ranks of the original burgher families, and by the legal
necessity of the concurrence of the whole people, and therefore moved
within the limits of a system developed in harmony with customary usages
and closely analogous to the organisation of other Latin cities) into
an aristocratic-oligarchic republic, with a strong executive authority
in the hands of a magistracy annually elected by the people; the
substructure of political life keeping in general outline the form into
which it had developed and in which it had to a great extent become fixed
by the end of the monarchical period.
This constitution was not formulated from the first in any general and
fundamental law (any more than the older system had been), nor was it
determinately fixed by such a law at any subsequent period, while, by
means of particular statutes, some more or less important innovations
were by degrees adopted as supplementary to the organisation handed
down from primitive times and to the traditional code. Many things
were gradually and silently modified by the mere force of altered
circumstances. The will of the people was the foundation of all law and
all authority in the state, and every man who enjoyed the full rights
of citizenship contributed directly, by his vote in the legislative and
elective assemblies, to the expression of the popular will; though with
varying degrees of influence in individual cases and within the limits of
set form and inherited opinion.
The freedom of republican Rome presupposed the existence of a servile
population to do the most menial work, a population from which in earlier
times the burgher class received only a small accession, invariably
unwelcome and regarded with contempt in the first generation of
citizenship. At the same time, the ancient usages _mos majorum_ were held
by the freemen in high honour, enhanced by a kind of religious reverence,
as having come into being by the favour and help of the gods, and having
continued to exist under their constant control and in virtue of their
intervention (_religio_).
Among these ancient usages was the classification of burghers according
to their wealth and economic independence or their poverty and precarious
means of subsistence; a classification which found expression in early
times in class divisions and in the application of the same standard
to the citizen army, and was even more strikingly manifested in the
exclusive employment of wealthy burghers for the special duties of
cavalry, with its complement, the formation of an order of knighthood,
on the basis of which there arose another class numerically small and a
governing body of citizens, to wit, the senate. The majesty of the people
(_maiestas populi_) was recognised by the highest executive power (by
the lowering of the symbols of consular authority, _fasces submissi_,
traced back by tradition to Valerius Publicola in the first year of the
consulate) and from the people all authority in the state was derived;
_nemo potestatem habet nisi a populo_ (Cic. _de Leg. Agr._ II, 11). In
them was vested the right of enacting laws and the right of making war
or peace (Polyb. VI, 14); by the popular election of the magistrates
they also indirectly determined the composition of the senate and they
originally exercised the highest jurisdiction. But their effective action
in popular assemblies was dependent on the initiative of the magistrates,
which in turn was partly under the control of the senate.
This body (which consisted of life members, and was consequently
subject only to gradual change by the infusion of fresh blood, and
which maintained its honourable character by the expulsion of unworthy
members), as the centre of rule and administration, preserved continuity
and balance in the policy of the state by means of special regulations
and injunctions set forth within the bounds permitted by express law and
ancient custom; but the senate itself could not transact business or
pass resolutions except under the presidency and direction of competent
magistrates. Moreover, the execution of all decrees and the maintenance
of law and order were (like the initiative in legislation and the
superintendence of the transactions of the council) in the hands of two
or more co-ordinate magistrates elected annually. But these magistrates
were chosen solely from among the economically independent burgesses,
regard being had to age and to promotion through a fixed course of
preliminary steps--requirements which were enforced with more minuteness
and exactitude as time went on. From the consulate, that is from the
two colleagues invested with the highest authority in matters civil and
military (_imperium_), which they wielded at first with but a limited
amount of assistance (from the quæstors), the magisterial authority
was gradually split up among a series of officials armed with special
powers (potestas) for special functions and departments of the public
service. The citizens obeyed the orders of these magistrates with strict
subordination and discipline, especially in time of war.
In the records of the first century and a half of the republic the
development of the state system and administration from this primary
and general basis and the modifications it underwent during the growth
(slow at first and then more rapid) of the power and greatness of
Rome, are obscured by the fact that a struggle for higher political
employment--_i.e._, over the question whether it should be extended from
a close corporation of burgesses (the patricians) to the whole body
of citizens--is intermingled with a struggle between aristocracy and
democracy for changes in the character of the system and administration
itself. This twofold aspect has not been clearly perceived by later
writers,[136] and was probably not adequately brought out in the brief
historical records of remote antiquity. We shall probably not be wrong
in assuming that the patricians, though gradually forced to resign their
class privileges, and the institutions and ordinances associated with
them, such as the comitia curiata, continued to maintain aristocratic
interests and institutions by assuming more and more the position of
nobles and allying themselves with the most prominent plebeian families;
while the plebeians, as long as they were engaged in the struggle for
equal rights, asserted the interests of democracy and extended democratic
principles to the whole working of the state.
The first step in the change and development of the older system which
had survived the abolition of monarchy, a step which decided the whole
subsequent course of the movement, was the creation of an office for
the benefit of the less privileged citizens, the tribunate of the plebs
(_tribunatus plebis_), an office which had originally no executive
functions but was charged with the protection of the individual citizen
and the control of the action of the magistracy. By degrees the tribunate
acquired an initiative, first as the medium of the demand of the less
privileged citizens for equal rights, and then as the promoter of the
interests of the common people and of a general democratic tendency in
legislation and administration. The latter function came more decidedly
into the foreground when the struggle between patricians and plebeians
had been fought out (after 366-300 or 286), though for a considerable
time it manifested itself only in constitutional opposition to everything
that bore the semblance of encroachment on the part of the senate or of
magisterial authority.
But although a twofold initiative had thus come into being in the
legislature, that of the consulate in the comitia curiata, relying mainly
on the support of the senate, and that of the tribunate in the comitia
tributa, legalised by the _lex Publilia_ in 339, the government preserved
its aristocratic character during the period between the formation of a
confederated state (340-338) and the end of the Punic War, the senate
retaining a strong executive authority and an undisturbed supremacy in
all affairs, general and particular, without any signal interference on
the part of the people beyond what was sanctioned by ancient usage; the
reason for this being that only in exceptional cases did the tribunes
advance legislative proposals in direct opposition to the will of the
senate.
It was not till after the destruction of Carthage, when on the one hand
the commons had greatly increased in numbers (in the municipal towns and
colonies as well as in Rome) as compared with the ruling or senatorial
class, and the poorer portion of the former class had congregated in the
capital, and when, on the other hand, discontent was rife in the Italian
confederacy; when the senate was falling more and more under the control
of a limited number of noble families, who appropriated the major part of
the advantages accruing from the enforced exertions of subject provinces,
leaving a share in the profits to such members of the knightly class only
as came forward in the character of _publicani_ or _negotiatores_, and
to them not enough to satisfy their cupidity--that the tribunate of the
plebs assumed the character of an opposition pure and simple, a character
which became more strongly marked after the time of the Gracchi. It
developed a legislative activity which, however we may judge of the
objects that individual statesmen had in view--as to ameliorate the
condition of the poorer citizens by the allotment of arable land or the
distribution of corn at reduced prices, to limit the arbitrary power of
the magistrates or of the senate, to prevent the excessive concentration
of government influence and authority, to promote the movement in favour
of equal rights among the members of the confederacy, to appoint
particular persons for the conduct of public affairs especially in
the case of military command--could not but have a pernicious effect,
because, forcibly dissociated from the senate, it was by its very nature
in the hands of individuals distinguished by the accident of an official
tenure liable to annual change and dependent on popular favour.
After a series of conflicts and violent political measures (inaugurated
by the Gracchi, Saturninus, and others) and a short-lived victory of
the democratic party under Marius and Cinna, a reaction in favour of
aristocracy combined with the military dictatorship of an individual set
in under Sulla, the ancient boundary lines of state and people having
been swept away by the outcome of the Social War. The cardinal points of
this reaction were the abolition of the initiative of the tribunate, and
the strengthening of senatorial influence by appointing none but senators
to magisterial office.
But this reaction, though carried through with ruthless severity, was the
less capable of holding its ground from the fact that the old forms in
which it was embodied were absolutely unsuited to the dimensions of the
state and the geographical distribution of the people under the radical
change of conditions brought about by the Social War. After the lapse
of ten years the rights of the tribunate were restored. But from that
time forth it placed itself at the head of the democratic and turbulent
elements in the capital and its immediate neighbourhood, and so became
a mere instrument in the hands of individual despots who attempted
(sometimes by wealth, but more generally by deeds of arms and popularity
with the soldiery) to build up a personal sway before which the tottering
authority of the senate was forced to bow, in spite of the resistance
offered by the aristocrats who (like Catulus and Hortensius) maintained
the principles of Sulla, and of men who (like Cicero) based their
influence on services of a peaceful character.
At length, having endured a civil war between the leaders of opposing
factions, weary of discord and of struggles in which all political
institutions had sunk to the level of empty and impotent forms liable to
perpetual violation and abuse, the state found under an autocracy the
repose and external order which the vast majority of the inhabitants of
Italy were not unwilling to accept in exchange for a political life from
participation in which they must have been virtually excluded, to a great
extent, by the inadequacy of the forms in which it was embodied.[b]
We have now traced the progress and decline of the Roman constitution
through its several stages. We have seen it pass from a monarchy into a
patrician oligarchy, from a patrician oligarchy into a limited republic,
from a limited republic into an oligarchy of wealth; and now, after a
century of civil war, in which the state swayed from one extreme to the
other, we close with the contemplation of an absolute despotism.[137]
Every page of the latter portion of our narrative shows how inevitably
events were tending to this issue. The Roman world had long been
preparing for it. At no time had such authority been altogether alien
from the minds of the people of Rome. Dictatorships were frequent in
their earlier history. In later times the consuls were, by the will of
the senate, raised to dictatorial power to meet emergencies, military
or civil. The despotic commands conferred upon Sulla and Pompey, the
powers seized first by Cæsar, and after him by the triumvirate, were all
of the same form as the authority conferred upon Octavian--that is, all
were, in form at least, temporary and provisional. The disorders of
the state required the intervention of one or more persons of absolute
authority. And whether power was vested in a dictator, such as Sulla and
Cæsar; in a sole consul, such as Pompey; in a commission of three, such
as the triumvirate of Antony, Octavian, and Lepidus; or in an imperator,
such as Octavian alone, the constitutional principle was the same. These
despotic powers were in every case, except in the cases of Sulla and
Cæsar, granted for a definite term; even Cæsar’s first dictatorships
were conferred for limited periods. The triumvirate was renewed at
intervals of five years, the imperial rule of Octavian at intervals of
ten. In theory these powers were conferred exceptionally, for a temporary
purpose; and when the purpose was served, the exception was to yield to
the rule. Even in the reign of Octavian there were some persons credulous
enough to expect a restoration of the republic.
Octavian’s adroitness has often been commended. But he had many examples
to warn and to guide him. Above all, the precedent of his uncle, the
great dictator, proved that the Romans were not prepared to accept even
order and good government at the price of royalty; and he dexterously
avoided the danger. The cruelties of the triumviral proscription he was
able to throw chiefly upon Antony. But these very cruelties stood him in
stead; for they induced men to estimate at more than its real worth the
clemency which distinguished his sole government. He avoided jealousy by
assuming a power professedly only temporary.
The title by which he liked to be known was that of “prince”; for he
revived in his own person the title _princeps senatus_, which had slept
since the death of Catulus. But in fact he absorbed all the powers of the
state. As imperator he exercised absolute control over the lives of all
Roman citizens not within the limits of the city. As pontifex maximus,
an office for which he waited patiently till the death of Lepidus, he
controlled the religion of the state. He assumed the censorial power
without a colleague to impede his action; thus he was able to revise
at pleasure the register of the citizens and the list of the senate,
promoting or degrading whom he pleased. He appropriated also the
tribunician power; and thus the popular assembly was by a side blow
deprived of vitality, for without its tribunes it was naught. Consuls
were still elected to give name to the year; and the assembly of the
centuries still met for the empty purpose of electing those whom the
prince named. Often, indeed, several pairs were elected for one year,
after a practice begun by the great dictator.
The name of Italy now at length assumed the significance which it still
bears; for all free inhabitants of Cisalpine Gaul obtained the rights of
Roman citizens. But little was done to repair the losses and decays of
which we have spoken in former chapters. The military colonies planted
by Sulla and Octavian had lowered its condition even beyond its former
misery. Ancient and respectable citizens made way for reckless and
profligate soldiery--such as the centurion who would have slain the poet
Virgil. Our pity for the ejected inhabitants is somewhat lessened by
the thought that all the civilised world was open to them, for all the
world was Roman. Gaul, and Spain, and Sicily, and the provinces of the
East, depopulated by long wars, gratefully received families of Italian
citizens, who brought them their habits of civilised life, industry,
and such property as they had saved from the ruin of their homes. Great
as was the injustice of expelling these persons, the actual loss and
suffering, after the pain of leaving home was over, must have been
incalculably less than we, in the present condition of Europe, are apt
to imagine. After the settlement of these colonies, it is probable that
what could be done for the welfare of Italy was done by Augustus and his
able ministers, Agrippa and Mæcenas. But the evils were too great and
too recent to admit of palliation; and Italy probably never recovered
from the effects of the Roman wars of conquest, till she received a new
population from the north.
The provinces were gainers by the transference of power from the senate
to a single man. The most important provinces were governed by deputies
appointed by the prince himself;[138] the rest were left to the rule
of senatorial proconsuls. The condition of the imperial provinces was
preferred; for the taxes exacted were lighter, and the government was
under severer control. Instances occur of senatorial provinces requesting
as a favour to be transferred to the rule of the emperor. But even the
senatorial government was more equitable than of old. The salaries of the
proconsuls were fixed; greedy men were no longer left to pay themselves
by extortion; and the governors held power for several years, so that
they had more temptation to win the good opinion of their subjects. The
examples of Pilate and Felix show, indeed, that glaring injustice was
still perpetrated; but these very cases show that the governors stood
in awe of those whom they governed--for in both cases the iniquity was
committed through fear of the Jews, whom these men had misgoverned and
whose accusations they feared. It may be added that both these men were
severely punished by the Romans for their misgovernment.
The world, therefore, on the whole, was a gainer by the substitution of
the imperial rule for the constitution falsely named republican. For
nearly two centuries the government was, with two intervals, administered
by rulers of great abilities and great energy; and though, no doubt,
there was enough of oppression and to spare, yet there was much less than
had been common in the times of senatorial dominion.
But if the provinces--that is, the empire at large--continued to be
content with a central despotism, in comparison with the old senatorial
rule of “every man for himself,” this was not the case at Rome. The
educated classes at least, and the senatorial nobility, soon began to
regret even the turbulent days of Marius and Pompey. The practice of
oratory, in which Romans excelled and took chief delight, was confined
to mere forensic pleadings, and lost all that excitement which attached
to it when an orator could sway the will of the senate, and calm or
rouse the seething passions of the Forum. We cannot wonder at Cicero,
notwithstanding his hatred for commotion, throwing himself into the
conflict against Antony with the fervid energy which is revealed in the
_Philippics_. He felt that this was the last chance of supporting the
old freedom of the Forum, which, with all its turbulence, he loved,
partly as the scene of his own glories, partly as a barrier against the
crushing force of military despotism. And though the slaughter of the
proscription and of the Civil War removed many of the leading senators,
men of independent will revolted against the deadening weight of despotic
government, as is revealed in the pages of Tacitus.
For a time, however, there was a general disposition, even at Rome, to
welcome the tranquillity ensured by the rule of Octavian, and nothing can
more strongly show the security that men experienced, even before the
battle of Actium, than the sudden burst with which literature and the
polite arts rose from their slumbers.
LITERATURE
Since the close of the period of conquest literary pursuits had
languished--the natural effect of political excitement and perilous
times. Oratory indeed had flourished, as every page of our history
indicates; and oratory may be called the popular literature of Rome,
as truly as journalism may be called the popular literature of to-day.
Cicero, a master of his art both in theory and practice, has left us
an account of a host of orators whom he thought worthy of being placed
in a national catalogue. Of the Gracchi, of Antonius, of Crassus,
of Sulpicius, we have spoken. After their time Cotta was the chief
favourite, and then Hortensius rose to be “king of the courts.” He
was what we may call an advocate by profession, taking little part in
politics till he had made a large fortune by the presents which at that
time stood in the place of regular fees; and even in the hot conflicts
that distinguished the rise of Pompey’s popularity he took but a languid
part. His style of speaking was what Cicero styles Asiatic--that is,
florid and decorated beyond what even the liberal judgment of his critic
could approve. Cicero considered his own youthful manner to partake of
this character, and refers to the brave speech in which he defended
Sext. Roscius of Ameria as an example of this style. But that elaborate
phraseology and copious flow of language remained with him to the last.
It was only when his feelings were strongly excited, or when his time
was limited, as when he defended old Rabirius or assailed Catiline in
the senate, that he displayed anything of that terrible concentration of
speech with which Demosthenes smote his antagonists. So far as we can
judge from the scanty remnants preserved, C. Gracchus, more than any
other Roman, possessed this fierce earnestness.
[Illustration: A ROMAN URN]
The example and criticism of Cicero lead to the conclusion that Roman
oratory generally had a tendency to be redundant, if not wordy. This
tendency may be ascribed to the prevailing mode in which the young
orators of the day sought to acquire skill in speaking. The schools
of the rhetorical teachers were thronged by them; and here they were
taught to declaim fluently on any subject, without reference to passion
or feeling or earnestness of purpose. The Romans of a former generation
endeavoured to crush such schools; and it was not at Rome that the
most celebrated teachers were to be found. Athens and Rhodes were the
fashionable universities, as we may call them, to which the young
Romans resorted, when they had finished their schooling at Rome. After
learning grammar and reading Latin and Greek poets in their boyhood,
they repaired to the more famous haunts of Grecian learning to study a
little geometry and a little philosophy; but it was to rhetoric or the
acquirement of a facile power of speaking on any given subject that the
ambitious youth devoted their chief efforts.
Education in Greek literature led many persons in this period to compose
Greek memoirs of the stirring scenes in which they had lived or acted.
Examples of this kind had been set as early as the Second Punic War by
Cincius and Fabius. It now became very common; but many began to employ
the vernacular language. C. Fannius Strabo, who mounted the walls of
Carthage by the side of Ti. Gracchus, and his contemporary L. Cælius
Antipater, wrote Latin histories famous in their time. Both were thought
worthy of abridgment by Brutus. The former is commended by Sallust, the
latter was preferred to Sallust by the emperor Hadrian. Even Cicero
commended Antipater as an improver of Latin composition; his follower
Asellio, says the orator, returned to the meagre dullness of the ancient
annalists. Then came L. Cornelius Sisenna, who witnessed the bloody
scenes of the Social and First Civil wars and wrote their history. Cicero
commends his style; Sallust speaks with praise of his diligence, but
hints at his subserviency to Sulla and the senate. But the great men
who made history at this epoch also took up the pen to write history.
Q. Lutatius Catulus, the colleague of Marius, left an account of the
Cimbrian War. The good Rutilius Rufus employed his leisure in penning an
historical work. Sulla composed a memoir of his own political life, to
which Plutarch often refers; but from the specimens which he gives the
dictator seems not to have been scrupulously impartial in his narrative.
Lucullus composed similar memoirs. Cicero drew up a Greek notice of his
consulate with his own ready pen, and endeavoured to persuade L. Lucceius
to undertake a similar task. Even the grim Marius wishes his deeds
commemorated.
The _Commentaries_ of Cæsar have been already quoted as illustrating
one characteristic of the great dictator’s mind. His pen was taken up
by several of his officers--A. Hirtius, who completed the narrative of
the Gallic War, C. Oppius, to whom the memoirs of the dictator’s wars
in Egypt, Africa, and Spain are often attributed, L. Cornelius Balbus,
and others. But the most remarkable prose writer of the late republican
era is C. Sallustius Crispus, familiarly known to us as Sallust. The two
works that remain to us from the pen of this vigorous writer, the account
of the Catilinarian conspiracy and the Jugurthine War, are rather to
be styled political pamphlets than histories. Sallust was, as we have
mentioned, an ardent partisan of the Marian and Cæsarian party. He had
been expelled from the senate. Dislike of the reigning oligarchy appears
at every turn, notwithstanding the semblance of impartiality assumed by
a man who practised the profligacy which he indignantly denounces. But
Sallust’s writings are valuable in a literary point of view, because they
disclose the terse and concentrated energy of which the Latin language
was capable, qualities little favoured by the oratorical tendencies of
the day, but used with marvellous effect in a later age by Tacitus.
Other writers now first endeavoured to hand down in Latin a history of
Rome from her foundation, or from early periods of her existence. Such
were C. Licinius Macer, Q. Claudius Quadrigarius, and Q. Valerius Antias,
all born about the beginning of the last century before the Christian
era. The works of these and other annalists were used and swallowed up
by the history of Livy, who was born, probably at Padua, in the year 59
B.C., and belongs to the imperial era of Augustus.
Some few writers in this same period began to cultivate grammatical
and philological studies. The founder of these pursuits at Rome is
reputed to be L. Ælius Stilo, the friend of Q. Metellus Numidicus and
his companion in exile. He was closely followed by Aurelius Opilius, a
freedman, who attended Rutilius Rufus into exile, as Stilo had attended
Metellus. But the man whose name is in this department most conspicuous
is M. Terentius Varro of Reate. He was born in 116 B.C., ten years
later than Cicero, whose friendship he cultivated to the close of the
great orator’s life. Varro was a laborious student, and earned by his
successful pursuit of all kinds of knowledge a reputation not deserved
by his public life. From the first he adhered to the cause of Pompey.
After Pharsalia, Cæsar received him with the same clemency that he had
shown to all his foes, and employed him in promoting the plans which he
had formed of establishing a public library at Rome. After the death
of Cæsar he retired to the country, and confined himself to literary
pursuits; but this did not save him from being placed on the proscription
list. He escaped, however, to be received into favour by Octavian, and
continued his studies in grammar, philology, and agriculture, till he
reached the great age of eighty-eight, when he died in peace. Of his
great work on the Latin language, originally consisting of twenty-four
books, six remain to attest the industry of the man and the infantine
state of philological science at the time. His work on agriculture in
three books, written when he was eighty years old, is still in our hands,
and forms the most accurate account we possess from the Romans of the
subject. Fragments of many other writers on all kinds of topics have been
handed down to justify the title given to Varro--“the most learned of the
Romans.”
We will close this sketch of the prose literature of the last age of
the republic with a notice of Cicero’s writings. Of his oratory and
of his epistles something has been said in former pages; and it is to
these productions that we must attribute the great orator’s place in the
commonwealth of letters. Of his poems it were better to say nothing. Of
his memoirs and historical writings little is known, unless we count
the fragments of _The Republic_ in this class. But his rhetorical
and philosophical essays each fill a goodly volume; and the writings
have been the theme of warm admiration for ages past. Yet it is to be
doubted whether the praises lavished upon them are not chiefly due to
the magic influence of the language in which they are expressed. The
_Brutus_ doubtless is extremely interesting as containing the judgment
of Rome’s greatest orator on all the speakers of his own generation
and of foregoing times. The dialogues on _The Orator_ are yet more
interesting as furnishing a record of his own professional experience.
But the philosophical works of Cicero are of little philosophical value.
They were written not so much to teach mankind as to employ his time
at moments when he was banished from the city. Their highest merit
consists in that lucid and graceful style which seduced the great Italian
Latinists at the end of the fifteenth century to abjure all words and
phrases which did not rest on Ciceronian authority, and which led Erasmus
himself, who resisted this pedantry, to “spend ten years in reading
Cicero.”
THE DRAMA
[Illustration: ROMAN TERRA-COTTA STATUETTE OF A COMEDIAN]
The dramatic art fell more and more into dishonour. We hear, indeed, of
two illustrious actors, Æsopus and Roscius, who were highly honoured
at Rome, and died in possession of large fortunes. But it was from
the great families that their honours and the means of making money
came. The theatres, as we have before observed, remained mere temporary
buildings till the second consulship of Pompey, when the first stone
theatre at Rome was erected by one of his wealthy freedmen. The pieces
represented were more of the nature of spectacles. Those in which Roscius
and Æsopus acted must have been old plays revived. In this period hardly
one name of a dramatic author occurs. It was not in theatres, but in
amphitheatres, that Rome and Roman towns sought amusement. Not only is
the Flavian amphitheatre the most gorgeous of the remains of imperial
Rome, but at all places where Roman remains are preserved, at Verona in
Transpadane Gaul, at Arles and Nismes in “the Province,” at Treves on
the distant Moselle, it is the amphitheatre that characterises the Roman
city, as it is the theatre that marks the Greek.
During this period, indeed, a new kind of dramatic representation was
introduced, which enjoyed a short-lived popularity. This was the mime.
The name at least was borrowed from the Greeks of Sicily. The Greek mime
was a kind of comic dialogue in prose, adapted to the purposes afterwards
pursued by the Roman satire. But while the Greek mime in the hands of
Sophron assumed a grave and dignified character, so that Aristotle
classes him among poets though he wrote in prose, the Roman mime was
generally coarse and licentious. Sulla was particularly fond of these
productions and their authors. After his time, Dec. Laberius, a knight,
strove to give them greater dignity. His mimes, as the fragments show,
were in iambic verse, and differed from comedy chiefly in their absence
of plot and their relation to the topics of the day. The fame of Laberius
was rivalled by Publilius Syrus, a freedman who acted in his own mimes,
whereas the knighthood of Laberius forbade this degradation. Cæsar,
however, on the occasion of his quadruple triumph, thought fit to order
Laberius to enter into a contest with Syrus; and the knight, though a man
of sixty years, dared not refuse. His sense of the indignity was strongly
marked by a fine passage in the prologue, still preserved:
“The Gods themselves cannot gainsay his might;
And how can I, a man, think to gainsay it?
So then, albeit I’ve lived twice thirty years
Free from all taint of blame, I left my house
At morn a Roman knight and shall return
At eve a sorry player. ’Faith, my life
Is one day longer than it should have been.”
In the course of the dialogue he expressed himself with freedom against
the arbitrary power of the great dictator:
“And then, good people, we’ve outlived our freedom.”
And in another line almost ventured to threaten:
“It needs must be
That he fears many, whom so many fear.”
Cæsar, however, took no further notice of these caustic sallies than to
assign the prize to Syrus.
POETRY
In poetry, the long period from the death of Lucilius to the appearance
of Virgil and Horace--a period of about sixty years--is broken only by
two names worthy of mention. But it must be admitted that these names
take a place in the first ranks of Roman literature. It is sufficient to
mention Lucretius and Catullus.
T. Lucretius Carus was a Roman of good descent, as his name shows. All
we know of him is that he was born about 95 B.C., and died by his own
hand in the forty-fourth year of his age. But if little is related of his
life, his great poem on _The Nature of the Universe_ is known by name at
least to all. It is dedicated to C. Memmius Gemellus, a profligate man
and an unscrupulous politician, who sided now with the senatorial party,
now with Cæsar, and ended his days in exile at Mytilene. But Memmius had
a fine sense in literature, as is evinced by his patronage of Lucretius
and of Catullus.
The poem of Lucretius seems to have been published about the time when
Clodius was lord of misrule in the Roman Forum, that is, about 58 B.C.
Memmius took part against the demagogue, and to this the poet probably
alludes in the introduction to the first book, where he regrets the
necessity which involved his friend in political struggles.
[Illustration: ROMAN TERRA-COTTA STATUETTE OF A COMEDIAN]
The attempt of Lucretius in his great poem is to show that all creation
took place and that all nature is sustained, without the agency of a
creating and sustaining God, by the self-operation of the elemental
atoms of which all matter is composed and into which all matter may be
resolved. The doctrine is the doctrine of Epicurus; but his arguments
are in great part borrowed from the early Greek philosophers, who
delivered their doctrines in heroic verse of the same majestic kind that
extorts admiration from the reader of Lucretius. He professes unbounded
reverence for the name of Empedocles; and doubtless if the works of this
philosopher, of Anaxagoras, and others were in our hands, we should see,
what their fragments indicate, the sources from which Lucretius drew.
Mingled with the philosophic argument are passages of noble verse; but
here also it may be doubted how far we can believe in his originality.
One of the most magnificent passages--the sacrifice of Iphigenia--is
taken in every detail from the famous chorus in the _Agamemnon_ of
Æschylus. When we see this, and know that the almost universal habit of
Latin poets was not to create but to adapt and borrow, we must pause
before we give Lucretius credit for originality.
Yet none can rise from the perusal of Lucretius without feeling that he
was a true poet. The ingenuity with which he employs Latin, a language
unused to philosophical speculation, to express in the trammels of metre
the most technical details of natural phenomena, is itself admirable.
But more admirable are those majestic outbursts of song with which the
philosophical speculations are diversified. The indignant and melancholy
passion with which he attacks the superstitious religion of his time
cannot but touch us, though we feel that his censure falls not upon
superstition only, but upon the sacred form of religion herself. But
he was little appreciated at Rome. Cicero speaks of him with that cold
praise which is almost worse than censure. Horace never makes mention
of his name. Virgil alone showed the true feeling of a poet by his value
for Lucretius. He scrupled not to borrow whole lines from his poem;
many passages in the _Georgics_ bear witness to the faithful study
which he had bestowed on the works of his great predecessor, and in one
often-quoted place he confesses his inferiority to the great didactic
poet. On the whole, it may be affirmed that Lucretius possessed the
greatest genius of all Roman poets.
In striking contrast to the majestic gravity of Lucretius appears the
second poet whom we have named. C. or Q. Valerius Catullus (for his first
name is variously given) was a native of Verona, or its neighbourhood.
He was born about 97 B.C., and is known to have been alive in the
consulship of Vatinius (47 B.C.). He was then fifty years of age, and
we hear of him no more. His father was a friend of Cæsar, and left his
son in the possession of some property. He had a house on the lovely
peninsula of Sirmio, at the foot of Lake Benacus, well known from his own
description; he had a villa near Tibur, and many of his poems indicate
the licentiousness of the life which he led at Rome. He endeavoured to
mend his broken fortunes by attending Memmius, the friend of Lucretius,
when he went as prætor into Bithynia, but was little satisfied with the
result, and bitterly complained of the stinginess of his patron. When
he was in Asia, his brother died, and he addressed to Hortalus, son of
the orator Hortensius, that beautiful and affecting elegy which alone
would entitle him to a foremost place among Roman poets. Fearless of
consequences, he libelled Cæsar in language too coarse for modern ears.
The great man laughed when he heard the libel, and asked the poet to
dinner the same day.
The poems of Catullus range from gross impurity to lofty flights of
inspiration. The fine poem called the _Atys_ is the only Latin specimen
which we possess of that dithyrambic spirit which Horace repudiated
for himself. The elegy to Hortalus is perhaps the most touching piece
of poetry that has been left us by the ancients. The imitation of
Callimachus is a masterpiece in its way. The little poems on passing
events--_pièces de circonstance_, as the French call them--are the most
lively, natural, and graceful products of the Latin muse. To those who
agree in this estimate it seems strange that Horace should only notice
Catullus in a passing sneer. It is difficult to acquit the judge of
jealousy. For Catullus cannot be ranked with the old poets, such as
Livius, Ennius, and others, against the extravagant admiration of whom
Horace not unjustly protested. His lyric compositions are as finished
and perfect as the productions of Horace, who never wrote anything so
touching as the elegy to Hortalus, or so full of poetic fire as the
_Atys_.
With Catullus may be mentioned his friend C. Licinius Macer, commonly
called Calvus, whom Horace honours by comprehending him in the same
condemnation. He was some fifteen years younger, and was probably son of
Licinius Macer the historian. He was a good speaker, and a poet (if we
believe other authors, rather than Horace) not unworthy to be coupled
with Catullus. He died at the early age of thirty-five or thirty-six.
Another poet highly praised by Catullus was C. Helvius Cinna, supposed to
be the unlucky man torn to pieces by the rabble after Cæsar’s funeral by
mistake for L. Cornelius Cinna.
At the time that the battles of Philippi secured to Italy somewhat of
tranquillity, many others began to devote themselves to poetry. Among
these were L. Varius Rufus, celebrated by Horace as the epic poet of his
time, and the few fragments from his pen which remain do much to justify
the praise. He was the intimate friend both of Horace and Virgil.
Furius Bibaculus also may be mentioned here as an epic poet, who
attempted to commit to verse the campaign of Cæsar in Gaul. Horace
ridicules his pretensions in two well-known passages; but there is reason
to think that in the case of Furius also the satirist was influenced by
some personal feeling.
But the fame of all other poets was obscured by the brightness which
encircled the names of Virgil and Horace. Properly their history belongs
to the Augustan or imperial era. But as they both published some of their
best works before the battle of Actium, a slight notice of them may be
permitted here.
P. Virgilius (or Vergilius) Maro was born at Andes, a village near
Mantua, in the famous year 70 B.C., so that he was entering manhood about
the time when Lucretius put an end to his own life. From his father he
inherited a small estate. After the battle of Philippi, he was among
those whose lands were handed over to the soldiery of the victorious
triumvirs. But what seemed his ruin brought him into earlier notice
than otherwise might have been his lot. He was introduced to Mæcenas by
Asinius Pollio, himself a poet, who had been made governor of Cisalpine
Gaul, and was reinstated in his property. This happy event, as everyone
knows, he celebrates in his first _Eclogue_. But it appears that when
he tried to resume possession he was nearly slain by the rude soldier
who had received a grant of the land, and it was some months before he
was securely restored. In company with Horace, Varius, and others, he
attended Mæcenas in the famous journey to Brundusium (probably in 37
B.C.). He had already (in the year 40 B.C.) written the famous eclogue on
the consulship of Pollio, of which we have before spoken; and soon after
this he began the _Georgics_, at the special desire of Mæcenas. They seem
to have been published in their complete form soon after the battle of
Actium. For the rest of his life, which he closed at Brundusium in the
fifty-first year of his age (19 B.C.), he was occupied with his _Æneid_,
which with modest self-depreciation he ordered to be destroyed. But it
was revised by his friends Varius and Plotius, and published by order of
the emperor, whom he had accompanied in a tour through Greece just before
his death.
The character of Virgil was gentle and amiable, his manners simple and
unobtrusive, and we hear little from himself of the great men with whom
he was associated in friendship. His health was feeble, and his life
passed away in uneventful study, of which his poems were the fruit
and are the evidence. Nothing can be more finished than the style and
versification of Virgil. His phraseology is so idiomatic as often to
defy translation; his learning so great, that each page requires a
commentary. He bestowed the greatest labour in polishing his writings;
his habit being, as is said, to pour forth a vast quantity of verses in
the morning, which he reduced to a small number by continual elaboration,
after the manner (as he said) of a bear licking her cubs into shape.
It may be said that Cicero, Horace, and Virgil himself, completed the
hellenising tendency which had begun with Ennius. Lucretius, though he
borrowed his matter from the old Greek philosophers, is much more Roman
in his style. Catullus is more Roman still. But Virgil, except in idiom,
is Greek everywhere. His _Eclogues_ are feeble echoes of the Doric grace
of Theocritus. His _Georgics_ are elaborately constructed from the works
of Hellenic writers, tempered in some of the noblest poetic passages with
the grave majesty of Lucretius. In his _Æneid_ almost every comparison
and description is borrowed from Homer, Apollonius, and other Greek
poets. In strength of character his epic fails entirely. No one person
in the _Æneid_ excites awe, love, sympathy, or any other strong feeling,
unless we except the untimely end of Nisus and Euryalus, the fates of
young Lausus and young Pallas, and the death of the heroine Camilla. But,
notwithstanding all this, such is the tender grace of his style, such the
elaborate beauty of his descriptions, that we read again and yet again
with renewed delight.
To give any adequate account of the gay Horace in a page is impossible.
Q. Horatius Flaccus was born in the colony of Venusia in the year 65
B.C., two years before the consulship of Cicero. He was therefore nearly
six years younger than Virgil, and two years older than Octavian. He
died in the fifty-seventh year of his age (8 B.C.), following his friend
and patron Mæcenas, who died a month or two before, according to his own
prophetic promise. His father was a freedman by birth, and by profession
a tax-collector, a good and tender parent, caring above all things for
the education of his son. He was at the expense of taking the promising
boy to Rome, probably when he was about twelve years old, where he
attended the school of Orbilius, known to others besides Horace for his
belief in the maxim that the “sparing of the rod spoils the child.” There
he learned Greek as well as Latin, by reading Homer and the old Roman
poets. About the age of eighteen he went to complete his education at
Athens, where Q. Cicero was his fellow-student. He was at Athens when
Cæsar was murdered, and became an officer in the army of Brutus. After
the battle of Philippi he returned to Rome, and was thrown entirely upon
the world. He obtained, we know not how, a clerkship in the treasury, on
the proceeds of which he contrived to live in the most frugal manner;
vegetables and water formed his truly poetic diet.
But he was not left to languish in poverty. He became acquainted with
Varius and Virgil, and was by them introduced to Mæcenas; and we have
from his own pen a pleasing narrative of the introduction. For several
months, however, he received no sign of the great man’s favour; but
before the journey to Brundusium he was evidently established in intimacy
as great as Virgil’s. Soon after this he published the first book of the
_Satires_. The second book and the _Epodes_ followed; but in the interval
he had received a substantial reward from his patron in the present of
the Sabine farm, so prettily described by himself. At a latter period he
became master of a cottage at Tibur, distant about fifteen miles from his
Sabine villa. But it must be said that, notwithstanding his dependence
upon patrons, Horace always maintained a steady determination not to be
subservient to any one, emperor or minister. The _Epistle to Mæcenas_
deserves especial notice; for it is written in a tone equally creditable
to the poet who would not condescend to flatter the patron, and to the
patron who tolerated such freedom in the poet.
Hitherto he had declined the name of poet. But the publication of the
three books of his _Odes_ in rapid succession indicated his title to this
name, though still he declined to approach subjects of epic grandeur.
Before this he had been introduced to Agrippa, and somewhat later to
Octavia. The first book of his _Epistles_ seems to have been completed in
21 B.C., when the poet was beginning his forty-fifth year. Then followed
the _Carmen Seculare_, which may be fixed, by the occasion to which it
belongs, to the year 17 B.C. After this came the fourth book of _Odes_
and the second book of _Epistles_, works in great part due to the express
request of Augustus.
The popularity of the _Odes_ of Horace has ever been great. He disclaims
the title of poet for his other writings; and of the odes he says that
he wrote poetry only under the sharp compulsion of poverty. Much is
borrowed from the Greek, as we know; and if the works of the Greek lyric
poets remained to us in a less fragmentary form, we should doubtless find
far more numerous examples of imitation. But the style of Horace is so
finished, his sentiments expressed with so much lively precision, and
in words so happily chosen, that he deserves the title which he claims
of “Rome’s lyric minstrel.” No doubt his poetry was the result of great
labour, and every perusal of his odes strengthens the belief that he
spoke literally when he compared himself to “the matine bee,” rifling the
sweets of many flowers, and finishing his work with assiduous labour. It
is in the first book of the _Epistles_ that we must seek the true genius
of Horace--the easy man of the world, popular with his great patrons, the
sworn friend of his brother poets, good-natured to every one, except the
old poets of Rome, whom he undervalued partly (as in the case of Livius)
from dislike for a rude and imperfect style, partly (as we must suspect
in the case of Catullus and Calvus) from an irrepressible emotion of
jealousy.
The elegiac poets, Tibullus and Propertius, with their younger and more
famous compeer Ovid, and many writers of lesser note, belong to the
imperial era of Augustus.
THE FINE ARTS
A few words may be added on the subject of art generally. With the great
fortunes that had been amassed first by senatorial rulers and afterwards
by the favourites of the triumvirs, it is natural that art in some shape
should be cultivated. But Greek masters still ruled at Rome; and a taste
began for collecting ancient works, such as resembles the eagerness with
which the pictures of the old masters are sought in modern Europe. In
the oration of Cicero against Verres we have an elaborate exposure of
the base and greedy arts by which that wholesale plunderer robbed the
Sicilians of their finest works of art. It was, no doubt, an extreme
case; but Verres would not have dared to proceed to extremities so
audacious, unless he had been encouraged by many precedents.
The arts also of the builder and engineer grew with the growing wealth of
Rome. It was one of the chief and favourite occupations of C. Gracchus,
during his brief reign, to improve the roads and the bridges. The great
dictator Cæsar had many projects in view when he was cut off--as,
for instance, the draining of the mountain lakes by tunnels, of the
Pontine marshes by canal. Many of these works were afterwards executed
by Agrippa, who also (as we have said) constructed the Julian harbour,
by uniting the Lucrine and Avernian lakes with the sea. In the year 33
B.C. he condescended to act as ædile, and signalised his magistracy by a
complete repair of the aqueducts and sewers.
Before this time, also, had begun the adornment of the city with noble
buildings of public use. A vast basilica was laid out and begun by M.
Æmilius Paulus, consul in 50 B.C. This magnificent work was said to have
been erected with money received from Cæsar as the price of the consul’s
good services. But the Basilica Æmilia was eclipsed by the splendid plans
of the dictator Cæsar. A great space had lately been cleared by the fire
kindled at the funeral of Clodius. Other buildings were pulled down, and
the Basilica Julia extended on the south of the Forum along the frontage
formerly occupied by the Tabernæ Veteres. The great work was completed by
Octavian. Still more magnificent edifices were the Thermæ or hot-baths
of Agrippa, and the noble temple erected by the same great builder, which
still remains under the name of the Pantheon. In this structure the
arch, that instrument by which Rome was enabled to give that combination
of stability and magnitude which distinguishes all her works, achieved
its greatest triumph; and here was seen the first of those great
vaulted domes which became the distinctive attribute of the Christian
architecture of modern Italy. By these and many other works--politic both
because they increased the magnificence and the health of the capital,
and also gave constant employment to workmen who might otherwise have
been turbulent--the emperor Augustus was enabled to boast that he had
“found Rome of brick, and left it of marble.”
But it was not to Rome alone that Augustus, Agrippa, and others confined
their labours. Nothing more excites our wonder than to stumble upon
costly works, built with a solidity that seems to imply immortality, in
the mountain districts of Italy or in remote valleys of Gaul or Asia
Minor or Africa. Wherever the Roman went he carried with him his art
of building. The aqueduct which was constructed by Agrippa to supply
Nemausus (Nismes), a colony of no great note, with water, is a proof
of this assertion. The largest modern cities can hardly show a work
of public utility so magnificent as the structure which is known to
thousands of modern travellers under the name of the Pont du Gard.
SOCIAL CONDITIONS; RELIGION
It is needless here to repeat the dismal tale of corruption and vice
which was presented in the life of most of the eminent Romans of the
time. Even the rich who were not vicious in their pleasures, such as
Lucullus and Hortensius, showed less of taste and good sense in their
expenditure than a desire of astonishing by display. The old religion
had lost its hold upon the public mind, though superstitious practices
lingered among the uneducated classes. Philosophy did little to supply
the void. The practical tendencies of the Roman mind attached it to the
most practical doctrines of the Hellenic teachers. The moral philosophy
of Zeno and Epicurus divided the Roman world; for here were to be found
broad and positive principles of action, comprehensible by all. The finer
speculations of the academic and peripatetic schools found few votaries
among men who were equally downright in their purposes of virtuous or
vicious living. In earlier times the stoic doctrines had found a response
in the hearts of men who revived the stern simplicity of the old Roman
life.
Some of the best men, in the times that followed the Punic Wars,
were stoics by practice as well as in profession. Such were Æmilius
Paulus and his son the younger Scipio. Notwithstanding the pride and
self-sufficiency which was the common result of Zeno’s discipline, there
was something ennobling in the principle that a man’s business in life
is to do his duty, regardless of pleasure or pain, riches or poverty,
honour or disgrace. But nature is too strong for such a system to prevail
for many years or over many men. The popular philosophy of the later
times was borrowed from the school of Epicurus, but it was an easy and
fashionable modification of the morality of that philosopher. Epicurus
taught that human happiness could not exist without pleasure, but he
added that without the practice of virtue real pleasure could not exist.
The former precept was adopted by the sensualists of Rome; the latter was
set aside.
Nothing more strongly proves the vicious state of society than the
neglect of the marriage tie and the unblushing immorality of the female
sex. Cæsar and Octavian, though their own practice was not such as to set
example to society, both saw the danger of this state of things, and both
exerted themselves to restore at least outward decency. Lawful marriage
they endeavoured to encourage or even to enforce by law.
But if religion had given way, superstition was busy at work. Men in
general cannot entirely throw aside those sentiments which are unfolded
with more or less of strength in every mind and in every state of social
existence. There will still be cravings after spiritual things and the
invisible world. The ancient oracles had fallen into disrepute, and soon
after the fall of the republic (as is well known to Christian students)
shrank into ignoble silence. But behind the Hellenic, a new world was now
opened to Rome. She became familiar with the mystic speculation and the
more spiritual creeds of the East. The fanatical worship of the Egyptian
divinities, Isis and Serapis, became common even in Rome, notwithstanding
the old feeling against Cleopatra, and notwithstanding many attempts to
crush this worship. It became a common practice to seek for revelations
of the future by means of the stars. The grim Marius carried about with
him a Syrian soothsayer. To consult Babylonian star readers was familiar
to the friends of Horace. Magi were the companions of Roman magistrates.
One of Juvenal’s most striking pictures is that of the gloomy voluptuary
Tiberius sitting in his island palace surrounded by a host of Chaldean
astrologers. Nor could the purer and sublimer images of the Hebrew
scriptures be unknown. Jews abounded in every populous city of the empire
long before they were scattered by the fall of their Holy City, and
wherever they went they must soon have made their influence felt. Others
sought the presence of God in nature, and confounded the divinity with
his works. Man seemed to them such a mass of contradictory meannesses,
that they tried to solve the riddle of evil by supposing that he, like
the animals and the whole creation, was but a machine animated by the
universal and pervading spirit of the deity. Such was the idea of the
elder Pliny, who forfeited a life spent in the study of nature to the
curiosity which led him to brave the fires of Vesuvius.
Out of this seething mass of doubts and fears, uncertain belief and
troubling disbelief, rose an eagerness to find and a readiness to receive
the principles of that religion which took root a few years later in
Galilee and Judea, and which extended itself with marvellous rapidity
over every province of the empire. The purity of its morality attracted
those whose hearts were still craving for something better than could
be found in the religions or philosophies of the day. Its aspirations
offered great attractions to those who were looking with doubt and
fear upon all that lay before or behind. The breaking up of national
distinctions, the union of all the Mediterranean shore under one strong
and central government, the roads and canals which connected countries
and provinces under the magnificent rule of the first Cæsars, were potent
instruments in assisting the rapid march of the new religion. All things,
moral and physical, internal and external, concurred to promote the
greatest, but most silent, revolution that has ever passed over the mind
of the civilised portion of the world.[c]
FOOTNOTES
[136] It is a marked feature of the representation of the struggle
between patricians and plebeians as given by Livy and Dionysius,
that the writers constantly waver in their own conception of the
plebeians and their leaders,--at times even flatly contradicting
themselves,--exhibiting them now as men demanding only right and justice,
now as passionate and unscrupulous agitators and partisans; while in the
same way the defenders of patrician rights appear now as the supporters
of law and order, now as the selfish and arrogant champions of usurped
privileges.
[137] [According to Herzog,[d] however, the government of Augustus was by
no means an absolute monarchy; it became a despotism by the development
of the power of the prince during the period from Augustus to Diocletian.]
[138] Legati or præfecti Cæsaris.
BRIEF REFERENCE-LIST OF AUTHORITIES BY CHAPTERS
[The letter [a] is reserved for Editorial Matter.]
CHAPTER I. LAND AND PEOPLE
[b] HENRY G. LIDDELL, _A History of Rome from the Earliest Times to the
Establishment of the Empire_.
[c] THEODOR MOMMSEN, _Römische Geschichte_.
[d] E. MEYER, _Geschichte des Alterthums_.
CHAPTER II. EARLY LEGENDS OF ROME--ÆNEAS AND ROMULUS
[b] THOMAS ARNOLD, _History of Rome_.
[c] TITUS LIVIUS, _The History of Rome_ (translated from the Latin by D.
Spillan, C. Edmonds, and W. A. M’Devitte).
[d] ALBERT SCHWEGLER, _Römische Geschichte_.
[e] B. G. NIEBUHR, _Lectures on the History of Rome_.
[f] P. VIRGILIUS MARO, _Æneidos_.
CHAPTER III. LEGENDARY HISTORY OF THE KINGS
[b] THOMAS ARNOLD, _History of Rome_.
[c] TITUS LIVIUS, _The History of Rome_ (translated from the Latin by D.
Spillan, C. Edmonds, and W. A. M’Devitte).
[d] DIONYSIUS HALICARNASSENSIS, _The Roman Antiquities of_ (translated
from the Greek by Edward Spelman).
CHAPTER IV. THE BANISHMENT OF THE KINGS--CRITICISMS OF MONARCHIAL HISTORY
[b] THOMAS ARNOLD, _History of Rome_.
[c] ALBERT SCHWEGLER, _Römische Geschichte_.
[d] OTTO GILBERT, _Geschichte und Topographie der Stadt Rom im Alterthum_.
[e] PLUTARCH, _Κεφαλαίων Καταγραφή_ (_Questiones Romanæ_).
[f] B. G. NIEBUHR, _Lectures on the History of Rome_.
[g] DIONYSIUS HALICARNASSENSIS, _The Roman Antiquities of_ (translated
from the Greek by Edward Spelman).
[h] K. W. F. VON SCHLEGEL, _Lecture on the Influence of the Greeks over
the Romans_ (in his _Lectures on the History of Literature_).
CHAPTER V. CIVILISATION OF THE REGAL PERIOD
[b] THOMAS ARNOLD, _History of Rome_.
[c] B. G. NIEBUHR, _The History of Rome_.
[d] TITUS LIVIUS, _The History of Rome_ (translated from the Latin by D.
Spillan, C. Edmonds, and W. A. M’Devitte).
[e] DIONYSIUS HALICARNASSENSIS, _The Roman Antiquities of_ (translated
from the Greek by Edward Spelman).
[f] POLYBIUS, _Πραγματεία_.
[g] PLINIUS, _Historia Naturalis_.
[h] E. MEYER, _Geschichte des Alterthums_.
[i] G. W. BOTSFORD, _A History of Rome_.
[j] W. J. SOLTAU, _Über Entstehung und Zusammensetzung der altrömischen
Volksversammlungen_.
CHAPTER VI. THE FIRST CENTURY OF THE REPUBLIC
[b] G. F. HERTZBERG, _Geschichte der Römer im Alterthum_.
[c] H. G. LIDDELL, _A History of Rome from the Earliest Times to the
Establishment of the Empire_.
[d] WILHELM IHNE, _The History of Rome_.
[e] DIONYSIUS HALICARNASSENSIS, _The Roman Antiquities of_ (translated
from the Greek by Edward Spelman).
[f] EUTROPIUS, _Breviarium Historiæ Romanæ_.
[g] T. H. DYER, _A History of the City of Rome: its Structures and its
Monuments: From its Foundation to End of Middle Ages_.
[h] TITUS LIVIUS, _The History of Rome_ (translated from the Latin by D.
Spillan, C. Edmonds, and W. A. M’Devitte).
[i] PLUTARCH, _Βίοι Παράλληλοι_.
[m] E. VON HERZOG, _Geschichte und System der römischen Staatsverfassung_.
[n] JOHN FISKE, _Myths and Mythmakers_.
CHAPTER VII. THE INVASION OF THE GAULS AND ITS SEQUEL
[b] H. G. LIDDELL, _A History of Rome_, etc.
[c] TITUS LIVIUS, _The History of Rome_ (translated from the Latin by D.
Spillan, C. Edmonds, and W. A. M’Devitte).
[d] J. J. AMPÈRE, _L’empire romaine à Rome_.
[e] B. G. NIEBUHR, _The History of Rome_.
[f] GEORGE CORNEWALL LEWIS, _An Inquiry Into the Credibility of the Early
Roman History_.
[g] WILHELM IHNE, _The History of Rome_.
[h] THEODOR MOMMSEN, _Römische Geschichte_.
[i] A. SCHWEGLER, _Römische Geschichte_.
[j] E. PAIS, _Storia di Roma_, forming Part II of his _Storia d’Italia
dei tempi pur Antichi_.
CHAPTER VIII. THE CONQUEST OF CENTRAL ITALY
[b] H. G. LIDDELL, _A History of Rome, etc._
[c] THOMAS KEIGHTLEY, _The History of Rome_.
[d] J. J. AMPÈRE, _L’empire romaine à Rome_.
[e] E. A. FREEMAN, _A History of Federal Government in Greece and Italy_.
[f] WILHELM IHNE, _The History of Rome_.
[g] TITUS LIVIUS, _The History of Rome_ (translated from the Latin by D.
Spillan, C. Edmonds, and W. A. M’Devitte).
[h] G. W. BOTSFORD, _A History of Rome_.
CHAPTER IX. THE COMPLETION OF THE ITALIAN CONQUEST
[b] THEODOR MOMMSEN, _Römische Geschichte_.
[c] H. G. LIDDELL, _A History of Rome, etc._
CHAPTER X. THE FIRST PUNIC WAR
[b] H. G. LIDDELL, _A History of Rome, etc._
[c] TITUS LIVIUS, _The History of Rome_ (translated from the Latin by D.
Spillan, C. Edmonds, and W. A. M’Devitte).
[d] POLYBIUS, _The History of Polybius_ (translated from the Greek by H.
Spears).
[e] B. G. NIEBUHR, _The History of Rome_.
[f] APPIANUS ALEXANDRINUS, _The History of Appian of Alexandria_
(translated from the Greek by J. D[ancer]).
[g] PALMERIUS.
[h] DIODORUS SICULUS, _The Historical Library_.
[i] L. DE BEAUFORT, _Dissertation sur l’incertitude des cinqs premiers
siècles de l’histoire romaine_.
[j] DION CASSIUS, _Ῥωμαϊκὴ ἱστορία_.
CHAPTER XI. FIRST HALF OF THE SECOND PUNIC WAR
[b] W. IHNE, _The History of Rome_.
[c] H. G. LIDDELL, _A History of Rome, etc._
[d] POLYBIUS, _The History of Polybius_ (translated from the Greek by H.
Spears).
[e] TITUS LIVIUS, _The History of Rome_ (translated from the Latin by D.
Spillan, C. Edmonds, and W. A. M’Devitte.)
CHAPTER XII. CLOSE OF THE SECOND PUNIC WAR
[b] H. G. LIDDELL, _A History of Rome, etc._
[c] POLYBIUS, _The General History of Polybius_ (translated from the
Greek by J. Hampton).
[d] J. FUCHS, _Der Zweite Punische Krieg und seine Quellen, Polybius und
Livius_.
[e] R. B. SMITH, _Rome and Carthage_.
CHAPTER XIII. THE MACEDONIAN AND SYRIAC WARS AND THE THIRD PUNIC WAR
[b] H. G. LIDDELL, _A History of Rome, etc._
[c] THOMAS KEIGHTLEY, _The History of Rome_.
[d] POLYBIUS, _The General History of Polybius_ (translated from the
Greek by J. Hampton).
[e] LUCIUS ANNÆUS FLORUS, _Epitome of Roman History_ (translated from the
Latin by J. S. Watson).
[f] WILHELM IHNE, _The History of Rome_.
[g] APPIANUS ALEXANDRINUS, _The History of Appian of Alexandria_
(translated from the Greek by J. D[ancer]).
[h] CORNELIUS NEPOS, _Lives of Illustrious Men_, “The Life of Hannibal”
(translated from the Latin by L. W. Finch).
[i] TITUS LIVIUS, _The History of Rome_ (translated from the Latin by D.
Spillan, C. Edmonds, and W. A. M’Devitte).
CHAPTER XIV. CIVILISATION AT THE END OF THE PERIOD OF CONQUEST
[b] H. G. LIDDELL, _A History of Rome, etc._
[c] H. W. STÖLL, _Geschichte der Römer bis zum Untergange der Republik_.
[d] A. ESMEIN, _Mélanges de l’histoire du droit et du critique_.
[e] THOMAS KEIGHTLEY, _The History of Rome_.
[f] POLYBIUS, _The General History of Polybius_ (translated from the
Greek by J. Hampton).
[g] M. L. G. BOISSIER, _La religion romaine d’Auguste aux Antonins_.
[h] THEODOR MOMMSEN, _Römische Geschichte_.
[i] A. H. J. GREENIDGE, _Roman Public Life_.
CHAPTER XV. THE GRACCHI AND THEIR REFORMS
[b] H. G. LIDDELL, _A History of Rome, etc._
[c] A. H. BEESLY, _The Gracchi, Marius, and Sulla_.
[d] GEORGE LONG, _The Decline of the Roman Republic_.
[e] PLUTARCH, _Lives_ (translated from the Greek by T. North).
[f] WILHELM IHNE, _The History of Rome_.
[g] APPIANUS ALEXANDRINUS, _The History of Appian of Alexandria_
(translated from the Greek by J. D[ancer]).
CHAPTER XVI. THE JUGURTHINE AND OTHER WARS
[b] H. G. LIDDELL, _A History of Rome, etc._
[c] H. W. STÖLL, _Geschichte der Römer bis zum Untergange der Republik_.
[d] SALLUST (CAIUS SALLUSTIUS CRISPUS), _The Jugurthine War_ (translated
from the Latin by J. S. Watson).
[e] WILHELM IHNE, _The History of Rome_.
[f] PLUTARCH, _Lives_ (translated from the Greek by T. North).
[g] LUCIUS ANNÆUS FLORUS, _Epitome of Roman History_ (translated from the
Latin by J. S. Watson).
[h] TITUS LIVIUS, _The History of Rome_ (translated from the Latin by D.
Spillan, C. Edmonds, and W. A. M’Devitte).
CHAPTER XVII. THE BEGINNING OF CIVIL STRIFE
[b] J. J. AMPÈRE, _L’empire romaine à Rome_.
[c] CHARLES MERIVALE, _The Fall of the Roman Republic_.
[d] WILHELM IHNE, _The History of Rome_.
[e] CAIUS VELLEIUS PATERCULUS, _Compendium of the History of Rome_
(translated from the Latin by J. S. Watson).
CHAPTER XVIII. MARIUS AND SULLA
[b] CHARLES MERIVALE, _The Fall of the Roman Republic_.
[c] A. H. BEESLY, _The Gracchi, Marius, and Sulla_.
[d] LUCIUS ANNÆUS FLORUS, _Epitome of Roman History_ (translated from the
Latin by J. S. Watson).
[e] WILHELM IHNE, _The History of Rome_.
[f] VALERIUS MAXIMUS, _De Factis Dictisque Memorabilibus Libri IX_.
[g] CICERO, _Orationes (Pro Sex. Roscio Amerino)_.
[h] THEODOR MOMMSEN, _Römische Geschichte_.
[i] T. H. DYER, _A History of the City of Rome: its Structures and its
Monuments: From its Foundation to End of Middle Ages_.
[k] K. S. ZACHARIÆ VON LINGENTHAL, _L. Cornelius Sulla genannt der
Glückliche als Ordner des römischen Freystaates_.
[l] E. A. FREEMAN, _Cornelius Sulla and the Flavian Cæsars_ (in Essays,
Series II).
[m] APPIANUS ALEXANDRINUS, _The History of Appian of Alexandria_
(translated from the Greek by J. D[ancer]).
[n] OROSIUS, _Historiarum adversus Paganos Libri VII_.
CHAPTER XIX. THE DICTATORSHIP OF SULLA
[b] CHARLES MERIVALE, _The Fall of the Roman Republic_.
[c] PLUTARCH, _Lives_ (translated from the Greek by T. North).
[d] APPIANUS ALEXANDRINUS, _The History of Appian of Alexandria_
(translated from the Greek by J. D[ancer]).
CHAPTER XX. THE RISE OF POMPEY
[b] H. G. LIDDELL, _A History of Rome, etc._
[c] OSCAR JÄGER, _Geschichte der Römer_.
[d] L. VON RANKE, _Weltgeschichte_.
CHAPTER XXI. THE CONSPIRACY OF CATILINE
[b] CHARLES MERIVALE, _The Fall of the Roman Republic_.
[c] H. G. LIDDELL, _History of Rome, etc._
[d] SALLUST, _The Conspiracy of Catiline_ (translated from the Latin by
J. S. Watson).
[e] CAIUS VELLEIUS PATERCULUS, _Compendium of the History of Rome_
(translated from the Latin by J. S. Watson).
[f] APPIANUS ALEXANDRINUS, _The History of Appian of Alexandria_
(translated from the Greek by J. D[ancer]).
CHAPTER XXII. CÆSAR AND POMPEY
[b] H. G. LIDDELL, _A History of Rome, etc._
[c] THOMAS KEIGHTLEY, _History of Rome_.
[d] C. JULIUS CÆSAR, _Commentaries of the Gallic and Civil Wars_
(translated from the Latin by W. A. M’Devitte and W. S. Bohn).
[e] LUCIUS ANNÆUS FLORUS, _Epitome of Roman History_ (translated from the
Latin by J. S. Watson).
CHAPTER XXIII. CÆSAR AT WAR WITH POMPEY
[b] OSCAR JÄGER, _Geschichte der Römer_.
[c] APPIANUS ALEXANDRINUS, _The History of Appian of Alexandria_
(translated from the Greek by J. D[ancer]).
[d] LUCIUS ANNÆUS FLORUS, _Epitome of Roman History_ (translated from the
Latin by J. S. Watson).
[e] CAIUS VELLEIUS PATERCULUS, _Compendium of the History of Rome_
(translated from the Latin by J. S. Watson).
CHAPTER XXIV. FROM PHARSALIA TO THE DEATH OF CATO
[b] CHARLES MERIVALE, _A History of the Romans Under the Empire_.
[c] CHARLES MERIVALE, _The Fall of the Roman Republic_.
[d] LUCIUS ANNÆUS FLORUS, _Epitome of Roman History_ (translated from the
Latin by J. S. Watson).
[e] SALLUST, _The Jugurthine War_ (translated from the Latin by J. S.
Watson).
[f] APPIANUS ALEXANDRINUS, _The History of Appian of Alexandria_
(translated from the Greek by J. D[ancer]).
CHAPTER XXV. THE CLOSING SCENES OF CÆSAR’S LIFE
[b] CHARLES MERIVALE, _A History of the Romans Under the Empire_.
[c] CHARLES MERIVALE, _The Fall of the Roman Republic_.
[d] H. G. LIDDELL, _A History of Rome, etc._
[e] THOMAS ARNOLD, _A History of the Later Roman Commonwealth_.
[f] LUCIUS ANNÆUS FLORUS, _Epitome of Roman History_ (translated from the
Latin by J. S. Watson).
[g] APPIANUS ALEXANDRINUS, _The History of Appian of Alexandria_
(translated from the Greek by J. D[ancer]).
[h] L. WIEGANDT, _Julius Cæsar und die tribunische Gewalt_.
[i] CAIUS SUETONIUS TRANQUILLUS, _Lives of the Twelve Cæsars_ (translated
from the Latin by A. Thomson).
[j] STRABO, _The Geography of Strabo_ (translated from the Greek by H. C.
Hamilton and W. Falconer).
[k] DION CASSIUS, _Ῥωμαϊκὴ ἱστορία_.
[l] J. A. FROUDE, _Cæsar_.
CHAPTER XXVI. THE PERSONALITY AND CHARACTER OF CÆSAR
[b] CHARLES MERIVALE, _The Fall of the Roman Republic_.
[c] CAIUS SUETONIUS TRANQUILLUS, _Lives of the Twelve Cæsars_ (translated
from the Latin by A. Thomson).
[d] THEODOR MOMMSEN, _Römische Geschichte_.
[e] APPIANUS ALEXANDRINUS, _The History of Appian of Alexandria_
(translated from the Greek by J. D[ancer]).
CHAPTER XXVII. THE LAST DAYS OF THE REPUBLIC
[b] H. G. LIDDELL, _History of Rome, etc._
[c] APPIANUS ALEXANDRINUS, _The History of Appian of Alexandria_
(translated from the Greek by J. D[ancer]).
[d] CAIUS VELLEIUS PATERCULUS, _Compendium of the History of Rome_
(translated from the Latin by J. S. Watson).
[e] LUCIUS ANNÆUS FLORUS, _Epitome of Roman History_ (translated from the
Latin by J. S. Watson).
[f] V. GARDTHAUSEN, _Augustus und seine Zeit_.
CHAPTER XXVIII. THE STATE OF ROME AT THE END OF THE REPUBLIC
[b] J. N. MADWIG, _Die Verfassung und Verwaltung des römischen Staats_.
[c] H. G. LIDDELL, _A History of Rome, etc._
[d] E. VON HERZOG, _Geschichte und System der römischen
Staatsverfassung_.
[Illustration: THE ROMAN REPUBLIC IN 200 B.C., SHOWING THE ROUTES OF
HANNIBAL AND HASDRUBAL
BORMAY & CO.]