THE GREAT EVENTS BY FAMOUS HISTORIANS
VOLUME II
A COMPREHENSIVE AND READABLE ACCOUNT OF THE WORLD'S HISTORY. EMPHASIZING
THE MORE IMPORTANT EVENTS, AND PRESENTING THESE AS COMPLETE NARRATIVES
IN THE MASTER-WORDS OF THE MOST EMINENT HISTORIANS
NON-SECTARIAN NON-PARTISAN NON-SECTIONAL
ON THE PLAN EVOLVED FROM A CONSENSUS OF OPINIONS GATHERED FROM THE MOST
DISTINGUISHED SCHOLARS OF AMERICA AND EUROPE, INCLUDING BRIEF
INTRODUCTIONS BY SPECIALISTS TO CONNECT AND EXPLAIN THE CELEBRATED
NARRATIVES, ARRANGED CHRONOLOGICALLY, WITH THOROUGH INDICES,
BIBLIOGRAPHIES, CHRONOLOGIES, AND COURSES OF READING
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
ROSSITER JOHNSON, LL.D.
ASSOCIATE EDITORS
CHARLES F. HORNE, Ph.D.
JOHN RUDD, LL.D.
1905
BINDING
Vol. II
The binding of this volume is a facsimile of the original on exhibition
in the Bibliothèque Nationale.
It was executed by the Royal Binder, Clovis Eve, for Marie de' Médicis,
Queen Consort of Henry IV of France. She was a great lover of fine arts,
and especially of rich bindings. The one here shown was her special
pride. It shows her arms--the arms of France and Tuscany--surrounded
with the cordelière, the sign of her widowhood, accompanied by the
monogram M.M. (Marie Médicis). She was exiled by Cardinal Richelieu in
1631.
CONTENTS
VOLUME II
An Outline Narrative of the Great Events,
CHARLES F. HORNE
Institution and Fall of the Decemvirate in Rome (B.C. 450),
HENRY G. LIDDELL
Pericles Rules in Athens (B.C. 444),
PLUTARCH
Great Plague at Athens (B.C. 430),
GEORGE GROTE
Defeat of the Athenians at Syracuse (B.C. 413),
SIR EDWARD S. CREASY
Retreat of the Ten Thousand Greeks (B.C. 401-399),
XENOPHON
Condemnation and Death of Socrates (B.C. 399),
PLATO
Brennus Burns Rome (B.C. 388),
BARTHOLD GEORG NIEBUHR
Tartar Invasion of China by Meha (B.C. 341),
DEMETRIUS CHARLES BOULGER
Alexander Reduces Tyre, Later Founds Alexandria (B.C. 332),
OLIVER GOLDSMITH
The Battle of Arbela (B.C. 331),
SIR EDWARD S. CREASY
First Battle Between Greeks and Romans (B.C. 280-279),
PLUTARCH
The Punic Wars (B.C. 264-219-149),
FLORUS
Battle of the Metaurus (B.C. 2O7),
SIR EDWARD S. CREASY
Scipio Africanus Crushes Hannibal at Zama and Subjugates Carthage (B.C.
202),
LIVY
Judas Maccabaeus Liberates Judea (B.C. 165-141),
JOSEPHUS
The Gracchi and Their Reforms (B.C. 133),
THEODOR MOMMSEN
Caesar Conquers Gaul (B.C. 58-50),
NAPOLEON III
Roman Invasion and Conquest of Britain (B.C. 55-A.D. 79),
OLIVER GOLDSMITH
Cleopatra's Conquest of Caesar and Antony (B.C. 51-30),
JOHN P. MAHAFFY
Assassination of Caesar (B.C. 44),
NIEBUHR
PLUTARCH
Rome Becomes a Monarchy
Death of Antony and Cleopatra (B.C. 44-30),
HENRY GEORGE LIDDELL
Germans under Arminius Revolt Against Rome (A.D. 9),
SIR EDWARD S. CREASY
Universal Chronology (B.C. 450-A.D. 12),
JOHN RUDD
ILLUSTRATIONS
VOLUME II
Blind Appius Claudius led into the Roman Senate Chamber to vote on the
proposition of peace or war with Pyrrhus (page 174),
Painting by Prof, A. Maccari.
Oracle of Delphi,
Painting by Claudius Harper.
Death of Alexander the Great after a prolonged debauch,
Painting by Carl von Piloty.
AN OUTLINE NARRATIVE
TRACING BRIEFLY THE CAUSES, CONNECTIONS, AND CONSEQUENCES OF
THE GREAT EVENTS
(FROM THE RISE OF GREECE TO THE CHRISTIAN ERA)
CHARLES F. HORNE, Ph.D.
Earth's upward struggle has been baffled by so many stumbles that
critics have not been lacking to suggest that we do not advance at all,
but only swing in circles, like a squirrel in its cage. Certain it is
that each ancient civilization seemed to bear in itself the seeds of its
own destruction. Yet it may be held with equal truth that each new
power, rising above the ruins of the last, held something nobler, was
borne upward by some truth its rival could not reach.
At no period is this more evident than in the five centuries immediately
preceding the Christian era. Persia, Greece, Carthage, Rome, each in
turn was with some justice proclaimed lord of the world; each in turn
felt the impulse of her glory and advanced rapidly in culture and
knowledge of the arts; and each in turn succumbed to the temptations
that beset unlimited success. They degenerated not only in physical
strength, but in moral honesty.
Let us recognize, however, that the term "world-ruler" as applied to
even the greatest of these nations has but a restricted sense. When the
Persian monarch called himself lord of the sun and moon, he only meant
in a figurative way that he was acquainted with no other king so
powerful as himself; that beyond his own dominions he heard only of
feeble colonies, and beyond those the wilderness. Alexander, when he
sighed for more worlds to conquer, had in reality made himself lord of
less than a quarter of Asia and of about one-sixtieth part of Europe.
No man and no nation has ever yet been intrusted with the government of
the entire globe. None has proved sufficiently fitted for the giant
task. Each empire has been, as it were, but an experiment; and beyond
the border line of seas and deserts which ringed each boastful
conqueror, there were always other races developing along slower, and it
may be surer, lines.
In those old days our world was in truth too big for conquest. Armies
marched on foot. Provisions could not be carried in any quantity, unless
a general clung to the sea-shore and depended on his ships. What
Alexander might with more truth have sighed for, was some modern means
of swift transportation, possessed of which he might still have enjoyed
many interesting, bloody battles in more distant lands.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GREEKS
Taking the idea "world power" in the restricted sense suggested, Persia
lost it to Greece at Salamis. As the Asiatic hordes fled behind their
panic-stricken king, the Greeks, looking round their limited horizon,
could see no power that might vie with them. The idea of pressing home
their success and overthrowing the entire unwieldy Persian empire was at
once conceived.
But the Greeks were of all races least like to weld earth into one
dominion. They could not even unite among themselves. In short it cannot
be too emphatically pointed out that the work of Greece was not to
consolidate, but to separate, to teach the value of each individual man.
Asia had made monarchies in plenty. King after king had passed in
splendid, glittering pomp across her plains, circled by a crowd of
obsequious courtiers, trampling on a nameless multitude of slaves.
Europe was to make democracies, or at least to try her hand at them.
It has been well said that a democracy is the strongest government for
defence, the weakest for attack. Every little Greek city clung jealously
to its own freedom, and to its equally obvious right to dominate its
neighbors. The supreme danger of the Persian invasion united them for a
moment; but as soon as safety was assured, they recommenced their
bickering. Sparta with her record of ancient leadership, Athens with her
new-won glory against the common foe, each tried to draw the other
cities in her train. There was no one man who could dominate them all
and concentrate their strength against the enemy. So for a time Persia
continued to exist; she even by degrees regained something of her former
influence over the divided cities.
Among these Athens held the foremost rank. She was, as we have
previously seen, far more truly representative of the Greek spirit than
her rival. Sparta was aristocratic and conservative; Athens democratic
and progressive. The genius of her leaders gathered the lesser towns
into a great naval league, in which she grew ever more powerful. Her
allies sank to be dependent and unwilling vassals, forced to contribute
large sums to the treasury of their overlord.
This was the age of Pericles.[1] As Athens became wealthy, her citizens
became cultured. Statues, temples, theatres made the city beautiful.
Dramatists, orators, and poets made her intellectually renowned. A
marvellous outburst, this of Athens! Displaying for the first time in
history the full capacity of the human mind! Had there been similar
flowerings of genius amid forgotten Asiatic times? One doubts it; doubts
if such brilliancy could ever anywhere have passed, and left no clearer
record of its triumphs.
[Footnote 1: See _Pericles Rules in Athens_, page 12.]
Amid such splendor it seems captious to point out the flaw. Yet Athenian
and all Greek civilization did ultimately decline. It represented
intellectual, but not moral culture. The Greeks delighted intensely in
the purely physical life about them; they had small conception of
anything beyond. To enjoy, to be successful, that was all their goal;
the means scarce counted. The Athenians called Aristides the Just; but
so little did they honor his high rectitude that they banished him for a
decade. His title, or it may have been his insistence on the subject,
bored them.
His rival, Themistocles, was more suited to their taste, a clever scamp,
who must always be dealing with both sides in every quarrel, and
outwitting both. Athens was driven to banish him also at last, at his
too flagrant treachery. But he was not dismissed with the scathing scorn
our modern age would heap upon a traitor. He was sent regretfully, as
one turns from a charming but too persistently lawless friend. The
banishment was only for ten years, and he had his nest already prepared
with the Persian King. If you would understand the Greek spirit in its
fullest perfection, study Themistocles. Rampant individualism, seeking
personal pleasure, clamorous for the admiration of its fellows, but not
restrained from secret falsity by any strong moral sense--that was what
the Greeks developed in the end.
Neither must Athens be regarded as a democracy in the modern sense. She
was only so by contrast with Persia or with Sparta. Not every man in the
beautiful city voted, or enjoyed the riches that flowed into her
coffers, and could thus afford, free from pecuniary care, to devote
himself to art. Athens probably had never more than thirty thousand
"citizens." The rest of the adult male population, vastly outnumbering
these, were slaves, or foreigners attracted by the city's splendor.
But those thirty thousand were certainly men. "There were giants in
those days." One sometimes stands in wonder at their boldness. What all
Greece could not do, what Persia had completely failed in, they
undertook. Athens alone should conquer the world. By force of arms they
would found an empire of intellect. They fought Persia and Sparta, both
at once. Plague swept their city, yet they would not yield.[2] Their own
subject allies turned against them; and they fought those too. They sent
fleets and armies against Syracuse, the mightiest power of the West. It
was Athens against all mankind!
[Footnote 2: See _Great Plague at Athens_, page 34.]
She was unequal to the task, superbly unequal to it. The destruction of
her army at Syracuse[3] was only the foremost of a series of inevitable
disasters, which left her helpless. After that, Sparta, and then Thebes,
became the leading city of Greece. Athens slowly regained her fighting
strength; her intellectual supremacy she had not lost. Socrates,[4]
greatest of her sons, endeavored to teach a morality higher than earth
had yet received, higher than his contemporaries could grasp. Plato gave
to thought a scientific basis.
[Footnote 3: See _Defeat of the Athenians at Syracuse_, page 48.]
[Footnote 4: See _Condemnation and Death of Socrates_, page 87.]
Then Macedonia, a border kingdom of ancient kinship to the Greeks, but
not recognized as belonging among them, began to obtrude herself in
their affairs, and at length won that leadership for which they had all
contended. A hundred and fifty years had elapsed since the Greeks had
stood united against Persia. During all that time their strength had
been turned against themselves. Now at last the internecine wars were
checked, and all the power of the sturdy race was directed by one man,
Alexander, King of Macedon. Democracy had made the Greeks intellectually
glorious, but politically weak. Monarchy rose from the ruin they had
wrought.
As though that ancient invasion of Xerxes had been a crime of yesterday,
Alexander proclaimed his intention of avenging it; and the Greeks
applauded. They understood Persia now far better than in the elder days;
they saw what a feeble mass the huge heterogeneous empire had become.
Its people were slaves, its soldiers mercenaries. The Greeks themselves
had been hired to suppress more than one Persian rebellion,[5] and to
foment these also. They had learned the enormous advantage their
stronger personality gave them against the masses of sheeplike Asiatics.
[Footnote 5: See _Retreat of the Ten Thousand Greeks_, page 68.]
So it was in holiday mood that they followed Alexander, and in schoolboy
roughness that they trampled on the civilization of the East. In fact,
it is worth noting that the most vigorous resistance they encountered
was not from the Persians, but from a remnant of the Semites, the
merchants of the Phoenician city of Tyre.[6] In less than eight years,
B.C. 331-323, Alexander overran the whole known world of the East,[7]
only stopping when, on the border of India, his soldiers broke into open
revolt, not against fighting, but against further wandering.
[Footnote 6: See _Alexander Reduces Tyre_, page 133.]
[Footnote 7: See _The Battle of Arbela_, page 141.]
If this invasion had been the mere outcome of one man's ambition, it
might scarce be worth recording. But Alexander was only the topmost wave
in the surging of a long imminent, inevitable racial movement. Its
effect upon civilization, upon the world, was incalculably vast.
Alexander and his successors were city-builders, administrators. As such
they spread Greek culture, the Greek idea of individualism, over all
their world.
How deep was the change, made upon the imbruted Asiatics, we may perhaps
question. Our own age has seen how much of education may be lavished on
an inferior race without materially altering the brute instincts within.
The building-up of the soul in man is not a matter of individuals, but
of centuries. Yet in at least a superficial way Greek thought became the
thought of all mankind. We may dismiss Alexander's savage conquests with
a sigh of pity; but we cannot deny him recognition as a most potent
teacher of the world.
His empire did not last. It was in too obvious opposition to all that we
have recognized as the Grecian spirit. At his death the same impulse
seems to have stirred each one of his subordinates, to snatch for
himself a kingdom from the confusion. Instead of one there were soon
three, four, and then a dozen semi-Grecian states in Asia. The Greek
element in each grew very faint.
From this time onward Asia takes a less prominent place in world
affairs. Her ancient leadership in the march of civilization had long
been yielded to the Greeks. Now her semblance of military power
disappeared as well. Only two further happenings in all Asia seem worth
noting, down to the birth of Christ. One of these was the Tartar
conquest of China, an event which coalesced the Tartars, helped make
them a nation.[8] It was thus fraught with most disastrous consequences
for the Europe of the future. The other was the revolt of the Hebrews
under Judas Maccabaeus, against their Grecian rulers. This was a
religious revolt, a religious war. Here for the first time we find a
people who will believe, who can believe, in no god but their own, who
will die sooner than give worship to another. We approach the borders of
an age where the spirit is more valued than the body, where the mental
is stronger than the physical, where facts are dominated by ideas.[9]
[Footnote 8: See _Tartar Invasion of China_, page 126.]
[Footnote 9: See _Judas Maccabaeus Liberates Judea_, page 245.]
Had Alexander even at the moment of his greatest strength directed his
forces westward instead of east, he would have found a different world
and encountered a sturdier resistance. He himself recognized this, and
during his last years was gathering all the resources of his unwieldy
empire, to hurl them against Carthage and against Italy. What the issue
might have been no man can say. Alexander's death ended forever the
impossible attempt to unite his race. Once more and until the end,
Grecian strength was wasted against itself.
This gave opportunity to the growing powers of the West. Alexander is
scarce gone ere we hear Carthage boasting that the Mediterranean is but
a private lake in her possession. She rules all Western Africa and
Spain, Sardinia and Corsica. She masters the Greeks of Sicily, against
whom Athens failed. Rome is compelled to sign treaties with her as an
inferior.
THE GROWTH OF ROME
Rome was only husbanding her strength; the little republic of B.C. 510
had grown much during the two centuries of Grecian splendor. Her people
had become far better fitted for conquest than their eastern kinsmen. It
is presumable that here too it was the difference of surroundings which
had differentiated the race. The ancient Etrurian (non-Aryan)
civilization on which the Latins intruded, was apparently more advanced
than their own. For centuries their utmost prowess scarce sufficed to
maintain their independence. Thus it was not possible for them to become
too self-satisfied, to stand afar off and look down on their neighbors
with Grecian scorn. The _ego_ was less prominently developed; the
necessity of mutual dependence and united action was more deeply taught.
Their records display less of brilliancy, but more of patient
persistency, than those of Greece, less of spectacular individualism,
more of truly patriotic self-suppression. In Rome, even more than in
Sparta, the "State" was everything. During the early days men found
their highest glory in making their city glorious; their proudest boast
was to be "citizens of Rome."
To trace the slow steps by which the tiny republic grew to be mistress
of all Italy would take too long. She settled her internal difficulties
as all such difficulties must be settled, if the race is to progress;
that is, she became more democratic.[10] As the lower classes advanced
in knowledge and intelligence they insisted on a share of the
government. They fought their way to it. They united Rome, mastered the
other Latin cities, and admitted them to partnership in her power. She
conquered the Etruscans and the Samnites. For a moment we find her
almost overwhelmed by an inroad of the wild Celtic tribes from the
forests of Central Europe;[11] but, fortunately for her, the other
Italian states were equally crushed. It was weakness against weakness,
and the Romans retained their foremost place.
[Footnote 10: See _Institution and Fall of the Decemvirate in Rome_,
page 1.]
[Footnote 11: See _Brennus Burns Rome_, page 110.]
Not till more than a century later were they brought into serious
conflict with the Greeks. In the year B.C. 280, Pyrrhus, King of Epirus,
who had won a temporary leadership over a portion of the Grecian land,
undertook the conquest of the West.[12] Fifty years before, Alexander
with far greater power might have been victorious over a feebler Rome.
Pyrrhus failed completely. If the Romans had less dash and a less wide
experience of varied warfare than his followers, they had far more of
true, heroic endurance. The Greeks had reached that stage of individual
culture where they were much too selfishly intelligent to be willing to
die in battle. Pyrrhus withdrew from Italy. Grecian brilliancy was
helpless against Roman strength of union.
[Footnote 12: See _First Battle between Greeks and Romans_, page 166.]
Then came the far more serious contest between Rome and Carthage.[13]
Carthage was a Phoenician, a Semite state; and hers was the last, the
most gigantic struggle made by Semitism to recover its waning
superiority, to dominate the ancient world. Three times in three
tremendous wars did she and Rome put forth their utmost strength against
each other. Hannibal, perhaps the greatest military genius who ever
lived, fought upon the side of Carthage. At one time Rome seemed
crushed, helpless before him.[14] Yet in the end Rome won.[15] It was
not by the brilliancy of her commanders, not by the superiority of her
resources. It was the grim, cool courage of the Aryan mind, showing
strongest and calmest when face to face with ruin.
[Footnote 13: See _The Punic Wars_, page 179.]
[Footnote 14: See _Battle of the Metaurus_, page 195.]
[Footnote 15: See _Scipio Africanus Crushes Hannibal at Zama and
Subjugates Carthage_, page 224.]
Our modern philosophers, being Aryan, assure us that the victory of
Carthage would have been an irretrievable disaster to mankind; that her
falsity, her narrow selfishness, her bloody inhumanity, would have
stifled all progress; that her dominion would have been the tyranny of a
few heartless masters over a world of tortured slaves. On the other
hand, Rome up to this point had certainly been a generous mistress to
her subjects. She had left them peace and prosperity among themselves;
she had given them as much political freedom as was consistent with her
sovereignty; she had wellnigh succeeded in welding all Italy into a
Roman nation. It is noteworthy that the large majority of the Italian
cities clung to her, even in the darkest straits to which she was
reduced by Hannibal.
Yet when the fall of her last great rival left Rome irresistible abroad,
her methods changed. It is hard to see how even Carthaginians could have
been more cruel, more grasping, more corrupt than the Roman rulers of
the provinces. Having conquered the governments of the world, Rome had
to face outbreak after outbreak from the unarmed, unsheltered masses of
the people. Her barbarity drove them to mad despair. "Servile" wars,
slave outbreaks are dotted over all the last century of the Roman
Republic.
The good, if there was any good, that Roman dominion brought the world
at that period was the spreading of Greek culture across the western
half of the world. As Rome mastered the Greek states one by one, their
genius won a subtler triumph over the conqueror. Her generals recognized
and admired a culture superior to their own. They carried off the
statues of Greece for the adornment of their villas, and with equal
eagerness they appropriated her manners and her thought, her literature
and her gods.
But this superficial culture could not save the Roman Republic from the
dry-rot that sapped her vitals from within. As a mere matter of numbers,
the actual citizens of Rome or even of the semi-Roman districts close
around her were too few to continue fighting over all the vast empire
they controlled. The sturdy peasant population of Italy slowly
disappeared. The actual inhabitants of the capital came to consist of a
few thousand vastly wealthy families, who held all the power, a few
thousand more of poorer citizens dependent on the rich, and then a vast
swarm of slaves and foreigners, feeders on the crumbs of the Roman
table.
In the battles against Carthage, the mass of Rome's armies had consisted
of her own citizens or of allies closely united to them in blood and
fortune. Her later victories were won by hired troops, men gathered from
every clime and every race. Roman generals still might lead them, Roman
laws environ them, Roman gold employ them. Yet the fact remained, that
in these armies lay the strength of the Republic, no longer within her
own walls, no longer in the stout hearts of her citizens.
Perhaps the world itself was slow in seeing this degeneration. The
Gracchi brothers tried to stem the tide, and they were slain, sacrificed
by the nation they sought to save.[16] Cornelius Sulla was the man who
completed, and at the same time made plain to all, the change that had
been growing up. Having bitter grievances against his enemies in the
capital, he appealed for redress, not to the Roman senate, not to the
votes of the populace, but to the swords of the legions he commanded.
Twice he marched his soldiers against Rome. He brushed aside the feeble
resistance that was offered, and entered the city like a conqueror. The
blood of those who had opposed his wishes flowed in streams. Three
thousand senators and knights, the flower of the Roman aristocracy, were
slain at his nod. Of the common folk and of the Italians throughout the
peninsula, the slaughter was immeasurable. And when his bloody vengeance
was at last glutted, Sulla ruled as an extravagant, conscienceless,
licentious dictator. Rome had found a fitting master.
[Footnote 16: See _The Gracchi and Their Reforms_, page 259.]
THE STRUGGLE OF INDIVIDUALS FOR SUPREMACY
The Roman people, the mighty race who had defied a Hannibal at their
gates, were clearly come to an end. Sulla had proved the power of the
Republic to be an empty shell. After his death, men used the empty forms
awhile; but the surviving aristocrats had learned their awful lesson.
They put no further faith in the strength of the city; they watched the
armies and the generals; they intrigued for the various commands. It was
an exciting game. Life and fortune were the stakes they risked; the
prize--the mastery of a helpless world, waiting to be plundered.
Pompey and Caesar proved the ablest players. Pompey overthrew what was
left of the Greek Asiatic kingdoms and returned to Rome the idol of his
troops, wellnigh as powerful as had been Sulla. Caesar, looking in his
turn for a place to build up an army devoted to himself, selected Gaul
and spent eight years in subduing and civilizing what was in a way the
most important of all Rome's conquests. In Gaul he came in contact with
another, fresher Aryan race.[17] Rome received new soldiers for her
legions, new brains fitted to understand and carry on the work of
civilizing the world.
[Footnote 17: See _Caesar Conquers Gaul_, page 267.]
When Caesar, turning away from Britain,[18] marched these new-formed
legions back against Rome, even as Sulla had done, it was almost like
another Gallic invasion of the South. Pompey fled. He gathered his
legions from Asia; and the world resounded once more to the clash of
arms.
[Footnote 18: See _Roman Invasion and Conquest of Britain_, page 285.]
This, then, was the third and final stage of the huge struggle for
empire. War was still the business of the world. Rome had first defeated
foreign nations; then she had to defeat the uprisings of the subject
peoples; now her chiefs, finding her exhausted, fought among themselves
for the supreme power. Armies of Asiatics, armies of Gauls, each
claiming to represent Rome, battled over her helpless body.
Caesar was victorious. But when the conquering power which had once
belonged to the united nation became embodied in a single man, there was
a new way by which it might be checked. The government of Rome, like
that of the Greek and Asiatic tyrannies, became a "despotism tempered by
assassination"; and Caesar was its foremost victim.[19]
[Footnote 19: See _Assassination of Caesar_, page 313.]
His death did not stop the fascinating gamble for empire. It only added
one more move to the possible complexities of the game. The lesser
players had their chance. They intrigued and they fought. Egypt, the
last remaining civilized state outside of Rome, was drawn into the
whirlpool also.[20] Cleopatra and Antony acted their reckless parts, and
at length out of the world-wide tumult emerged "young Octavius," to
assume his _rôle_ as "Augustus Caesar," acknowledged emperor of the
world.[21]
[Footnote 20: See _Cleopatra's Conquest of Caesar and Antony_, page
295.]
[Footnote 21: See _Rome Becomes a Monarchy_, page 333.]
Note, however, that the term "world" is still one of boast, not truth.
Emperor over many men, Augustus was; but the powers of nature still shut
many races safe beyond his mastery. The ocean bounded his dominion on
the west; the deserts to the south and east; the German forests to the
north. These last he did essay to conquer, but they proved beyond him.
The wild German tribes having no cities, which they must defend at any
cost, could afford to flee or hide. Choosing their own time and place
they rose suddenly, smote the legions of Augustus, and melted into the
wilderness again.[22]
[Footnote 22: See _Germans Under Arminius Revolt against Rome_, page
362.]
Rome was checked at last. No civilized nation had been able to stand
against her; but the wild tribes of the Germans and the Parthians did.
Barbarism had still by far the larger portion of the world wherein to
live and develop, and gather brain and brawn. Rome could not conquer the
wilderness.
(For the next section of this general survey see Volume III.)
INSTITUTION AND FALL OF THE DECEMVIRATE IN ROME
B.C. 450
HENRY G. LIDDELL
(When wars and pestilence had laid a heavy burden upon the Roman people,
there appears to have been a period in which internal commotions and
civil strife were stilled, and the quarrels of patricians and plebeians
gave way to temporary truce. On the inevitable renewal of the old
struggle the college of tribunes adopted a measure favorable to the
plebeians in so far as it provided means for checking the abuse of power
on the part of consuls in punishing members of that class in connection
with the prosecution of suits against them.
The passage of this measure had the effect of reopening former
conflicts, the patrician elements becoming greatly alarmed at what they
regarded as a fresh encroachment upon their hereditary rights. The
contest was long and bitter, each side either bringing forward or
rejecting again and again the same measures or the same representatives.
Finally, compromises were made, and in the year B.C. 452 a commission of
ten men, called _decemvirs_, constituting the _Decemvirate_, was chosen,
consisting wholly of patricians, who entered with great efficiency upon
the discharge of legislative duties which resulted in the production of
a new code. This was approved by the senate and by the popular
representatives, and was published in the form of ten copper plates or
tables, which were affixed to the speaker's pulpit in the Forum. Among
the new decemvirs appointed in the year B.C. 450 were several plebeians,
the first official representatives of the entire people who were chosen
from that class.)
The patrician burgesses endeavored to wrest independence from the
"plebs" after the battle of Lake Regillus; and the latter, ruined by
constant wars with the neighboring nations, being compelled to make good
their losses by borrowing money from patrician creditors, and liable to
become bondsmen in default of payment, at length deserted the city, and
only returned on condition of being protected by tribunes of their own;
they then, by the firmness of Publilius Volero and Lætorius, obtained
the right of electing these tribunes at their own assembly, the "Comitia
of the Tribes." Finally the great consul Spurius Cassius endeavored to
relieve the commonalty by an agrarian law, so as to better their
condition permanently.
The execution of the Agrarian law was constantly evaded. But on the
conquest of Antium from the Volscians, in the year B.C. 468, a colony
was sent thither, and this was one of the first examples of a
distribution of public land to poorer citizens; which answered two
purposes--the improvement of their condition, and the defence of the
place against the enemy.
Nor did the tribunes, now made altogether independent of the patricians,
fail to assert their power. One of the first persons who felt the force
of their arm was the second Appius Claudius. This Sabine noble,
following his father's example, had, after the departure of the Fabii,
led the opposition to the Publilian law. When he took the field against
the Volscians, his soldiers would not fight, and the stern commander put
to death every tenth man in his legions. For the acts of his consulship
he was brought to trial by the tribunes M. Duillius and C. Sicinius.
Seeing that conviction was certain, the proud patrician avoided
humiliation by suicide.
Nevertheless the border wars still continued, and the plebeians suffered
much. To the evils of debt and want were added about this time the
horrors of pestilential disease, which visited the Roman territory
several times at that period. In one year (B.C. 464) the two consuls,
two of the four augurs, and the curio Maximus, who was the head of all
the patricians, were swept off--a fact which implies the death of a vast
number of less distinguished persons. The government was administered by
the plebeian aediles, under the control of senatorial interreges. The
Volscians and Aequians ravaged the country up to the walls of Rome; and
the safety of the city must be attributed to the Latins and Hernici, not
to the men of Rome.
Meantime the tribunes had in vain demanded a full execution of the
Agrarian law. But in the year B.C. 462, one of the Sacred College, by
name C. Terentilius Harsa, came forward with a bill, the object of which
was to give the plebeians a surer footing in the state. This man
perceived that as long as the consuls retained their almost despotic
power, and were elected by the influence of the patricians, this order
had it in its power to thwart all measures, even after they were passed,
which tended to advance the interests of the plebeians. He therefore no
longer demanded the execution of the Agrarian law, but proposed that a
commission of ten men (_decemviri_) should be appointed to draw up
constitutional laws for regulating the future relations of the
patricians and plebeians.
The Reform Bill of Terentilius was, as might be supposed, vehemently
resisted by the patrician burgesses. But the plebeians supported their
champion no less warmly. For five consecutive years the same tribunes
were reelected and in vain endeavored to carry the bill. This was the
time which least fulfils the character which we have claimed for the
Roman people--patience and temperance, combined with firmness in their
demands. To prevent the tribunes from carrying their law, the younger
patricians thronged to the assemblies and interfered with all
proceedings; Terentilius, they said, was endeavoring to confound all
distinction between the orders. Some scenes occurred which seem to show
that both sides were prepared for civil war.
In the year B.C. 460 the city was alarmed by hearing that the Capitol
had been seized by a band of Sabines and exiled Romans, under the
command of one Herdonius. Who these exiles were is uncertain. But we
know, by the legend of Cincinnatus, that Cæso Quinctius, the son of that
old hero, was an exile. It has been inferred, therefore, that he was
among them, that the tribunes had succeeded in banishing from the city
the most violent of their opponents, and that these persons had not
scrupled to associate themselves with Sabines to recover their homes.
The consul Valerius, aided by the Latins of Tusculum, levied an army to
attack the insurgents, on condition that after success the law should be
fully considered. The exiles were driven out and Herdonius was killed.
But the consul fell in the assault, and the patricians, led by old
Cincinnatus, refused to fulfil his promises.
Then followed the danger of the Æquian invasion, to which the legend of
Cincinnatus, as given above, refers. The stern old man used his
dictatorial power quite as much to crush the tribunes at home as to
conquer the enemies abroad.
One of the historians tells us that in this period of seditious violence
many of the leading plebeians were assassinated (as the tribune Genucius
had been), and to this time only can be attributed the horrible story,
mentioned by more than one writer, that nine tribunes were burned alive
at the instance of their colleague Mucius. Society was utterly
disorganized. The two orders were on the brink of civil war. It seemed
as if Rome was to become the city of discord, not of law. Happily, there
were moderate men in both orders. Now, as at the time of the secession,
their voices prevailed, and a compromise was arranged.
In the eighth year after the first promulgation of the Terentilian law,
this compromise was made (B.C. 454). The law itself was no longer
pressed by the tribunes. The patricians, on the other hand, so far gave
way as to allow three men (_triumviri_) to be appointed, who were to
travel into Greece, and bring back a copy of the laws of Solon, as well
as the laws and institutes of any other Greek states which they might
deem good and useful. These were to be the groundwork of a new code of
laws, such as should give fair and equal rights to both orders and
restrain the arbitrary power of the patrician magistrates.
Another concession made by the patrician lords was a small installment of
the Agrarian law. L. Icilius, tribune of the plebs, proposed that all
the Aventine hill, being public land, should be made over to the plebs,
to be their quarter forever, as the other hills were occupied by the
patricians and their clients. This hill, it will be remembered, was
consecrated to the goddess Diana (Jana), and though included in the
walls of Servius, was yet not within the sacred limits (_pomoerium_) of
the patrician city. After some opposition the patricians suffered this
Icilian law to pass, in hopes of soothing the anger of the plebeians.
The land was parcelled out into building-sites. But as there was not
enough to give a separate plot to every plebeian householder that wished
to live in the city, one allotment was assigned to several persons, who
built a joint house _flats_ or stories, each of which was inhabited--as
in Edinburgh and in most foreign towns--by a separate family.
The three men who had been sent into Greece returned in the third year
(B.C. 452). They found the city free from domestic strife, partly from
the concessions already made, partly from expectation of what was now to
follow, and partly from the effect of a pestilence which had broken out
anew.
So far did moderate counsels now prevail among the patricians, that
after some little delay they agreed to suspend the ordinary government
by the consuls and other officers, and in their stead to appoint a
council of ten, who were, during their existence, to be intrusted with
all the functions of government. But they were to have a double duty:
they were not only an administrative, but also a legislative council. On
the one hand, they were to conduct the government, administer justice,
and command the armies. On the other, they were to draw up a code of
laws by which equal justice was to be dealt out to the whole Roman
people, to patricians and plebeians alike, and by which especially the
authority to be exercised by the consuls, or chief magistrates, was to
be clearly determined and settled.
This supreme council of ten, or decemvirs, was first appointed in the
year B.C. 450. They were all patricians. At their head stood Appius
Claudius and T. Genucius, who had already been chosen consuls for this
memorable year. This Appius Claudius (the third of his name) was son and
grandson of those two patrician chiefs who had opposed the leaders of
the plebeians so vehemently in the matter of the tribunate. But he
affected a different conduct from his sires. He was the most popular man
of the whole council, and became in fact the sovereign of Rome. At first
he used his great power well, and the first year's government of the
decemvirs was famed for justice and moderation.
They also applied themselves diligently to their great work of
law-making, and before the end of the year had drawn up a code of ten
tables, which were posted in the Forum, that all citizens might examine
them and suggest amendments to the decemvirs. After due time thus spent,
the ten tables were confirmed and made law at the Comitia of the
Centuries. By this code equal justice was to be administered to both
orders without distinction of persons.
At the close of the year the first decemvirs laid down their office,
just as the consuls and other officers of state had been accustomed to
do before. They were succeeded by a second set of ten, who, for the next
year at least, were to conduct the government like their predecessors.
The only one of the old decemvirs reelected was Appius Claudius. The
patricians, indeed, endeavored to prevent even this, and to this end he
was himself appointed to preside at the new elections; for it was held
impossible for a chief magistrate to return his own name, when he was
himself presiding. But Appius scorned precedents. He returned himself as
elected, together with nine others, men of no name, while two of the
great Quinctian gens, who offered themselves, were rejected.
Of the new decemvirs, it is certain that three--and it is probable that
five--were plebeians. Appius, with the plebeian Oppius, held the
judicial office, and remained in the city; and these two seem to have
been regarded as the chiefs. The other six commanded the armies and
discharged the duties previously assigned to the quæstors and ædiles.
The first decemvirs had earned the respect and esteem of their
fellow-citizens. The new Council of Ten deserved the hatred which has
ever since cloven to their name. Appius now threw off the mask which he
had so long worn, and assumed his natural character--the same as had
distinguished his sire and grandsire, of unhappy memory. He became an
absolute despot. His brethren in the council offered no hinderance to
his will; even the plebeian decemvirs, bribed by power, fell into his
way of action and supported his tyranny. They each had twelve lictors,
who carried fasces with the axes in them the symbol of absolute power,
as in the times of the kings; so that it was said, "Rome had now twelve
Tarquins instead of one, and one hundred and twenty armed lictors
instead of twelve!" All freedom of speech ceased. The senate was seldom
called together. The leading men, patricians and plebeians, left the
city. The outward aspect of things was that of perfect calm and peace,
but an opportunity only was wanting for the discontent which was
smouldering in all men's hearts to break out and show itself.
By the end of the year the decemvirs had added two more tables to the
code, so that there were now twelve tables. But these two last were of a
most oppressive and arbitrary kind, devoted chiefly to restore the
ancient privileges of the patrician caste. Of these tables, it should be
observed that they were made laws not by the vote of the people, but by
the simple edict of the decemvirs.
It was, no doubt, expected that the second decemvirs also would have
held _comitia_ for the election of successors. But Appius and his
colleagues showed no such intention, and when the year came to a close
they continued to hold office as if they had been reelected. So firmly
did their power seem to be established that we hear of no endeavor being
made to induce them to resign.
In the course of this next year (B.C. 449), the border wars were
renewed. On the north the Sabines, and the Æquians on the northeast,
invaded the Roman country at the same time. The latter penetrated as far
as Mount Algidus, as in B.C. 458, when they were routed by old
Cincinnatus. The decemvirs probably, like the patrician burgesses in
former times, regarded these inroads not without satisfaction; for they
turned away the mind of the people from their sufferings at home. Yet
from these very wars sprung the events which overturned their power and
destroyed themselves.
Two armies were levied, one to check the Sabines, the other to oppose
the Æquians, and these were commanded by the six military decemvirs.
Appius and Oppius remained to administer affairs at home. But there was
no spirit in the armies. Both were defeated; and that which was opposed
to the Æquians was compelled to take refuge within the walls of
Tusculum.
Then followed two events which were preserved in well-known legends, and
which give the popular narrative of the manner in which the power of the
decemvirs was at last overthrown.
LEGEND OF SICCIUS DENTATUS
In the army sent against the Sabines, Siccius Dentatus was known as the
bravest man. He was then serving as a centurion; he had fought in one
hundred and twenty battles; he had slain eight champions in single
combat; had saved the lives of fourteen citizens; had received forty
wounds, all in front; had followed in nine triumphal processions, and
had won crowns and decorations without number. This gallant veteran had
taken an active part in the civil contests between the two orders, and
was now suspected, by the decemvirs commanding the Sabine army, of
plotting against them. Accordingly they determined to get rid of him;
and for this end they sent him out as if to reconnoitre, with a party of
soldiers, who were secretly instructed to murder him. Having discovered
their design, he set his back against a rock and resolved to sell his
life dearly. More than one of his assailants fell and the rest stood at
bay around him, not venturing to come within sword's length, when one
wretch climbed up the rock behind and crushed the brave old man with a
massive stone. But the manner of his death could not be hidden from the
army, and the generals only prevented an outbreak by honoring him with a
magnificent funeral.
Such was the state of things in the Sabine army.
LEGEND OF VIRGINIA[23]
[Footnote 23: Dionysius is the authority for this legend.]
The other army had a still grosser outrage to complain of. In this there
was a notable centurion, Virginius by name. His daughter Virginia, just
ripening into womanhood, beautiful as the day, was betrothed to L.
Icilius, the tribune who had carried the law for allotting the Aventine
hill to the plebeians. Appius Claudius, the decemvir, saw her and lusted
to make her his own. And with this intent he ordered one of his clients,
M. Claudius by name, to lay hands upon her as she was going to her
school in the Forum, and to claim her as his slave. The man did so; and
when the cries of her nurse brought a crowd round them, M. Claudius
insisted on taking her before the decemvir, in order, as he said, to
have the case fairly tried. Her friends consented; and no sooner had
Appius heard the matter than he gave judgment that the maiden should be
delivered up to the claimant, who should be bound to produce her in case
her alleged father appeared to gainsay the claim. Now this judgment was
directly against one of the laws of the twelve tables, which Appius
himself had framed; for therein it was provided that any person being at
freedom should continue free till it was proved that such person was a
slave. Icilius, therefore, with Numitorius, the uncle of the maiden,
boldly argued against the legality of the judgment, and at length
Appius, fearing a tumult, agreed to leave the girl in their hands on
condition of their giving bail to bring her before him next morning; and
then, if Virginius did not appear, he would at once, he said, give her
up to her pretended master. To this Icilius consented, but he delayed
giving bail, pretending that he could not procure it readily; and in the
mean time he sent off a secret message to the camp on Algidus, to inform
Virginius of what had happened. As soon as the bail was given, Appius
also sent a message to the decemvirs in command of that army, ordering
them to refuse leave of absence to Virginius. But when this last message
arrived, Virginius was already halfway on his road to Rome; for the
distance was not more than twenty miles, and he had started at
nightfall.