Obviously monarchy was the only solution. Cæsar was fifty-five years

old, spent with war and labour, and, as I have said, quite alone.

He was a man without beliefs or illusions or scruples. Not a bad

man: for he preferred justice and mercy to tyranny and cruelty, and

he had a passion for logic and order. He was not the sort of man to

make compromises. His sudden successes had taught him to despise his

enemies. He was not, of course, ignorant that the Romans (if there

were any true Romans left) had it in their blood to hate the title of

Rex. Every Roman schoolboy was brought up to declaim in praise of

regicides. But possibly in time they could be accustomed to the hideous

idea. For the present, old-fashioned titles like Dictator, Consul, and

Tribune would suffice. But the office must be made hereditary, and the

boy Octavius was already marked for adoption and succession. The title

of Rex could wait. Cæsar would feel his way gently.

But patience was not one of his virtues. Actually fortune only left

him less than two years, and those broken by tedious campaigns in the

Spanish provinces, for the regeneration of Roman society. In that time

he restored the finances, rearranged the provincial system, abolished

the political clubs which had been centres of disorder at Rome,

reformed the Calendar, dedicated a new forum and new temples, restored

and revised the senate, founded a system of municipal government for

Italy, settled his veterans on the land, and was preparing a great

expedition to chastise the Parthians.

Most of these acts were wisely done, but in one thing Cæsar

miscalculated. His brilliant successes and the adulation with which

he was surrounded led him to despise his enemies. He would not stoop

to flatter antiquarian prejudices or to cast a decent veil over his

monarchical position. You may treat people as slaves and they will

admire you for it, but when you _call_ them slaves they will begin

to resent it. Cæsar failed to rise from his chair to receive the

senators. In his reformed senate he included representatives of the

equestrian class, provincials and even distinguished soldiers of quite

humble birth. He allowed his statue to be set up beside the Seven

Kings of Rome. He accepted a gilt chair, he permanently retained the

triumphant general’s laurel-crown, partly because he was bald and

keenly sensitive about it; and then either through his orders or

by their own officiousness his friends began to throw up _ballons

d’essai_ in the direction of kingship. At the Lupercalia Antony offered

him a crown of gold. It was spread abroad that an ancient Sibylline

prophecy had foretold that the Parthians could only be conquered by

a king and that Cæsar was to adopt the title for the purpose of his

Eastern expedition. It was trifles like these, and trivial jealousies,

trivial requests declined in the name of justice, that led to the

great conspiracy. No doubt the influence of rhetorical patriotism had

its effect upon many of the conspirators. An unknown hand wrote “O

that thou wert living!” upon the statue of old Brutus the Liberator.

But neither Brutus nor Cassius deserves our admiration. It was pique

not patriotism that sharpened their daggers. Sixty senators conspired

together, and on the eve of setting out for Parthia--the Ides of March,

44 B.C.--Julius Cæsar was slain.

And then, having slain the tyrant and liberated the republic, the

patriots were helpless. A doctrinaire like Cicero might still dream

of restoring the commonwealth; but the only real question was who

should succeed. The people only cried for peace. It was not so much the

speech of Mark Antony as the funeral of Cæsar, cleverly stage-managed

by Calpurnia, and the genuine sorrow of his veterans, which gradually

turned the popular feeling against the conspirators. The senate did not

venture to declare Cæsar a tyrant, they confirmed his acts, but there

was no proposal to punish the murderers. The whole conclusion was a

feeble compromise.

The man who should have grasped the helm was Mark Antony. He was left

sole consul, there was a legion and the prætorian cohort under arms

only waiting the word. The conspirators had only a few gladiators in

their pay. Antony had every right to arrest them. But Antony was not

the man for the part. With all his talents his character was feeble. He

was always dependent on his surroundings and generally under feminine

influence. Once it had been the dancer Cytheris, at present it was

the aggressive Fulvia; for a time Octavia almost reformed him, but

Cleopatra easily ensnared him. He was a rake and a spendthrift, always

in debt. He was timid of public opinion: just now the aristocratic

society in which he moved was prating of tyrannicide. Antony wanted to

be in the fashion. There were dramatic embracements between Antony and

Brutus.

Now the testament of Cæsar, which had just been confirmed by the

senate, named young Gneius Octavius as heir to three-quarters of his

estate. At the end of the will was a codicil adopting him. Henceforth

until he gets the title of Augustus this young Cæsar must be called

Octavianus, though he never accepted that name for himself. The “second

heirs” named in case the first should fail or decline to succeed

included D. Brutus, one of the murderers, and Mark Antony himself.

Whosoever should accept the heirship would be bound by all Roman ideas

of honour to undertake the chastisement of the murderers. Antony seems

to have assumed that the obscure young man would not be likely to

accept the inheritance. He therefore got together all Cæsar’s papers,

and began to spend Cæsar’s immense fortune as only Antony could. He

began also to manipulate Cæsar’s papers, inserting anything he liked

among Cæsar’s “acts,” selling honours, raising taxes, recalling exiles

to please Fulvia. For some time no one ventured to complain. Leading

senators like Cicero retired to the country remarking that the tyrant

was dead but the tyranny still alive. Then, of course, Antony had to

provide himself with a province to ensure his future safety. Moreover,

the cry of the veterans for revenge began to move him to play the

Cæsarian. Thus Antony was virtually master of the Roman world and the

sky was dark with menace.

Into this dangerous arena steps the nineteen-year-old Octavian.

His guardian advised him to have nothing to do with his perilous

inheritance. Historians have often dubbed him a coward. But alone and

unfriended this youth left his tutors at Apollonia and came to Rome

to take up his trust. It meant, first, revenge upon the conspirators;

and secondly, a quarrel with Antony. It meant, in fact, two more civil

wars, and Octavian had seen nothing of warfare. He set to work coolly

and warily. There was still a magic in the name of Cæsar, and the

veterans rallied to him and besought him to march against Brutus and

Cassius. Part of his duties as executor was to pay a million sterling

in donations to the Roman people. He sold his property and began to

distribute the largess, man by man, tribe by tribe, until the sum was

paid. He gave magnificent games in his “father’s” honour, with the

lucky star of Julius publicly exhibited. He bought an army of 10,000

men with borrowed money. Two of Antony’s legions deserted to him

bodily, and the very veterans of Antony’s bodyguard offered to murder

their general if young Cæsar would give the signal.

But there was no haste in his method. Antony was to be used first and

then destroyed. Octavian tried for a time to work with the senate, and

even marched against Antony under their orders, but the incredible

folly of the senate, who were persuaded by Cicero that “the boy” was

negligible, drove him into the famous triple alliance of Antony,

Octavian, and Lepidus. These three were appointed under threat of their

armies to a kind of dictatorship in commission, “a triumvirate to

reorganise the state.” Revenge was the explicit motive of this league.

They began with the usual horrid proscription of all the senatorial

aristocrats to be found in Rome. This was mainly Antony’s work. His

creditors, his enemies and his wife’s enemies were slain wholesale,

and, among them, Cicero. Eighteen towns of Italy were destroyed to

provide lands for the veterans.

Meanwhile the tyrannicides had gathered in the East, and now Antony

and the young Cæsar set out in pursuit of them. In the two battles

of Philippi the luck of Octavian and the skill of Antony triumphed

over their dispirited adversaries. Brutus and Cassius fell. A few of

the “patriots” survived and joined Sextus Pompeius who was still at

large in the Mediterranean. In the warfare at Philippi Octavian’s

inexperience and real want of talent for generalship had been very

apparent in contrast to Antony. Lepidus was already a nonentity.

Antony went off to the East; and while he was holding his court of

justice in Cilicia there sailed into harbour the splendid royal yacht

of Cleopatra. The people left the judgment seat to see the famous

Queen, and Antony too was soon at her feet. Signor Ferrero would have

us believe, relying partly on the mature age of Cleopatra, that it

was policy, not love, which made Antony dally at Alexandria. Policy

no doubt was there, but everything that we know of Antony leads us

to believe that he was just the man to be captured by a celebrated

courtesan, particularly if she were also a queen. Certainly his sojourn

in the East lowered his character both as a politician and as a soldier.

Octavian had to face Rome and the West. His task was full of perils

but also full of possibilities. The soldiers were mutinous, he himself

was grievously sick, and the redoubtable Fulvia, who was her husband’s

real agent at Rome, very soon perceived that he was an enemy to be

fought. Octavian had to fight another small civil war at Perugia

before he could call himself master even of Italy, and then fight

Sextus Pompeius in the Sicilian waters. Luckily he had at his side a

splendid soldier--general and admiral by turns as were all good Roman

fighting-men--Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa.[19] He had also as his agent

at Rome Mæcenas, an astute diplomatist and man of business. So though

he himself often displayed feebleness and was often in danger he

accomplished his task and became master of the West. Thus the lordship

of the world was reduced to a plain duel.

Antony had actually married Cleopatra after Fulvia’s death and

Octavia’s divorce, and as consort of the Egyptian queen reigned in

Oriental majesty. He had marched against the Parthians and failed

ignominiously. He was assigning provinces and princedoms to Cleopatra

and her dubious offspring. It was easy for Octavian to represent Antony

as a renegade Roman threatening to introduce Oriental monarchy into

Rome. When at last it came to the final civil war Octavian appeared as

fighting in the public cause of Rome against Egypt, with Antony as a

mere deserter on the Egyptian side. The great naval battle of Actium

(31 B.C.), which decided the mastery of the world for Octavian, was

thus a triumph for the Roman arms over the barbarians. Actually it was

a degenerate Antony who sailed away at the crisis of the battle in the

wake of the queen’s yacht. The glory of the day was Agrippa’s. The luck

as usual was the young Cæsar’s. He was able to inaugurate his reign at

Rome by presenting her with Egypt, the richest country in the world. In

29 B.C. he came home to celebrate a glorious triple triumph and to open

a new era as the first Roman Emperor.

LATE REPUBLICAN CIVILISATION

Such is a brief sketch of the hundred and four years from the day when

Tiberius Gracchus first arose to challenge the senatorial oligarchy

to the day when the Empire was established upon the ruins of the

Republic. It is perhaps the most terrible century in the history of

the world. Rome had become the centre of the world, the only hope for

civilisation, and Rome was filled with bloodshed and corruption. For

the provinces there was no decent government, only a succession of

licensed plunderers. In the city itself there was a long series of

personal struggles for the mastery; politics meant organised rioting by

gangs of roughs, questions were solved by the dagger or by the swords

of senators. At intervals there came from each side alternately the

murderous proscriptions, in which every man of spirit or eminence on

the opposing side was marked down for destruction. Often their sons

and grandsons perished with them, and in any case their fortunes were

destroyed. Besides the proscriptions there had been of late a series of

civil wars on a great scale in which thousands of the bravest Romans

perished by each other’s swords. A successful foreign war may have

some compensating effect in stiffening the moral fibre of a nation and

exalting its spirit. But civil war is disastrous in every way. It is

only the meanest who survive and the evil passions which it arouses

have no compensation.

In such a period it is wonderful that civilisation should have been

able to make any advances at all. But in spite of the public turmoil

private citizens were amassing enormous fortunes out of the plunder of

the world, and living, though always on the edge of a volcano, in state

and luxury like kings. It is now our task to see something of private

life and culture in the Rome of the expiring Republic.

Money was easily made in those days and lavishly spent. Even an honest

man like Cicero, governing a comparatively poor province like Cilicia,

made at least £20,000 by his year of office while he remitted to the

provincials a million, which, as he says, any governor of average

morality would have retained. Legacies were a very frequent source

of revenue especially to pleaders, and it was customary for a rich

testator at Rome to make large bequests to his friends. Cicero gained

£200,000 by such legacies. Foreign kings and states paid handsomely

for legal advice or support. Although a barrister was supposed to give

his services for nothing yet gifts and legacies were not refused. For

the financier or business man there were many channels to affluence.

There were mines all over the empire to be financed and exploited.

Although there was little genuine industry at Rome, yet the training

and use of slaves for various undertakings was a lucrative business.

Crassus trained a salvage brigade for Rome and went about to fires with

them in order to make bids for the purchase of the burning property.

Atticus trained a company of copying clerks and made money by the sale

of books. He also kept gladiators and hired them out to magistrates for

the games. Fortunes were made, as in the case of Crassus, by buying

up the confiscated property of the proscribed. Land speculation was

rendered extremely profitable by the frequent assignation of farm-lands

to veteran soldiers who were generally glad to sell them at once.

The extravagance of the Roman nobles led to a very brisk traffic in

loans at high interest. There was a great deal of genuine commercial

speculation in ships and cargoes, generally by companies, and Cato

advises the investor to put his money in fifty different enterprises

rather than in one at a time. Commerce overseas was, however,

forbidden to the senators by the Claudian law, and these speculated

chiefly in land, on which they made a profit by slave-labour. But

the most profitable business of all was tax-farming, in which the

equestrian classes joined together in capitalist rings. In these and

other ways prodigious fortunes were accumulated. The stored-up capital

of the Roman world is astounding in its magnitude compared even to

that of modern times. The real property of Pompeius sold for £700,000.

Æsopus, the popular actor, left £200,000. After the most lavish

donations to the public Crassus left nearly two millions sterling by

will. On the death of Cæsar the treasury contained eight millions in

bullion of which a million was the dictator’s own property.

But all the wealth of the Roman empire was shared by a very narrow

circle. The gulf between rich and poor was far deeper than it is

to-day. We hear of poor nobles and rich upstarts, but of a respectable

middle class with traditions of its own there is little trace. There is

an aristocracy of a few thousand families, and nothing else but a vast

proletariat, silent and hungry, dependent on their bounty, bribed with

money, bribed with free corn, and bribed with bloody spectacles. They

lived miserably in huge tenement blocks or in hovels on the outskirts

of the city. The only career open to them was in the army, and that

was chiefly filled by the stronger rustics. They had nothing to do but

lounge in the streets, gape at gladiators and actors and shout for

the most generous politicians of the day. No doubt there were honest

citizen cobblers, but Roman history is silent about them.

That section of the city which is to be styled Society was as proud and

reckless as the French aristocracy before the Revolution. The senate

had now become almost literally a hereditary rank. A child born into

one of these princely houses was tended by a multitude of slaves. By

this time there was some attempt at a liberal education. Attended by a

slave pedagogue the boy would go daily to the school of some starved

Greek, who would teach him his letters and his figures. The staple of

education was the delivery of artificial declamation on the model of

Isocrates or Demosthenes. After this stage a young man would commonly

be sent abroad to Athens or Rhodes to finish his education with a

little philosophy or mathematics, but chiefly with oratory. Returned

to Rome, his destiny placed him in a circle of foppish youths, who

devoted their principal attention to dress and manicure. Bejewelled

and scented, they practised every vice, natural and unnatural. In

due course, with no effort but a few bribes from the parental purse,

they became priests and augurs, thus entering what were in reality

aristocratic dining-clubs. Dining was now the principal art of Rome.

Macrobius has preserved the menu of one of these priestly dinners of

the Republic, at which the priests and vestals were present. The party

began with a prolusion like the Russian or Swedish system of _hors

d’œuvres_, in which seventeen dishes of fish and game were presented.

The dinner itself contained ten more courses, “sow’s udder, boar’s

head, fish-pasties, boar-pasties, ducks, boiled teals, hares, roasted

fowls, starch-pastry, Pontic-pastry.” Such was the State religion

of Rome in the first century before Christ. At intervals the young

noble’s father’s friends would invite him to join their staff on

foreign service. If he had the good fortune to serve with Pompeius

or Lucullus in the East or with Cæsar in Gaul, he might get a taste

of real manliness, and serve his country as tribune of the soldiers.

But more often in a peaceful province like Sicily or Africa he was

merely initiated into the arts of extortion, and enjoyed all the

vicious opportunities of the younger sons of princes. Thus fortified

by experience he would return to Rome to seek the suffrages of his

fellow-citizens for the quæstorship, the first rung on the ladder

of office. Votes were to be won by bribery, direct or indirect. One

candidate would spread a banquet for a whole tribe; another would seek

to outshine his rivals by providing strange beasts from Africa--among

Cicero’s correspondence there is an urgent appeal for Cilician panthers

to be slain in the arena--or by dressing his gladiators in silver

armour. Similar requirements accompanied his progress through all

the stages of office on a progressively lavish scale. As quæstor he

would be a judge or a comptroller of the treasury for a single year.

Then as ædile he would conduct the public festivals, preside in the

ædile’s court, control the markets and streets of Rome. So he rose to

be consul, commander of legions and president of the state, and then

in due course governor of an enormous province. From his quæstorship

onwards his seat in the senate was assured.

In his home the noble Roman lived like a king, waited upon by an

enormous retinue. There was much luxury and little comfort. The houses

of the Romans were on a far more luxurious scale than those of the

Greeks. The only genuine Roman taste that can be called liberal was the

hobby of collecting beautiful town houses and country seats. Cicero,

who was a man of modest income and tastes, seems to have possessed

about eighteen different estates, and gave nearly £30,000 for his town

house. The qualities prized in the choice of a mansion were space and

coolness, and the Romans of this age were by no means insensible to

the charms of scenery. The coast round Naples and Baiæ was dotted with

sumptuous villas, and the gay world spent its summer there in much the

same way as the cosmopolitan crowds at Biarritz. Besides his great town

house and his family mansion at Arpinum, and his country houses at

Tusculum and elsewhere, Cicero had marine villas all along the coast at

Antium, Formiæ, Cumæ, Puteoli, and Pompeii, and all along the Campanian

road were his private “inns,” where he lodged on his journeys. His

favourite villa was the one at Tusculum, the scene of many of his

literary labours, and among others of the famous Tusculan Disputations.

It had previously belonged to Sulla, and was adorned with paintings in

commemoration of Sulla’s victories. It was situated on the top of a

hill along with many other villas of the aristocracy, and commanded a

delightful view of the city about twelve miles away. The park attached

to it was extensive, and through it there ran a broad canal. He had

books everywhere, but his principal library was deposited at Antium. At

Puteoli he constructed a cloister and a grove on the model of Plato’s

Academy.

The principal feature of the Roman house was its large colonnaded hall,

with a roof open in the middle to admit light and air. This roof sloped

inwards, and allowed the rain to fall into a central tank, delightful

for coolness, no doubt, but probably very unwholesome. In old days the

atrium had been the common room of the Roman family. It still retained

a symbolical marriage-bed, a symbolical spinning-wheel, the portraits

of the ancestors, and the ceremonial altar to the family gods, who were

now stored away in a cupboard close at hand. Most of the rooms opened

directly out of the atrium. As they are seen in the ruins of Roman

villas, they appear to have been comparatively small and ill-lighted.

The larger houses themselves were generally built of local limestone

with facings of stucco, though the greater part of Rome was still

in this first century b.c. constructed of sun-baked bricks. It was

considered unheard-of luxury when Mamurra faced his walls with marble

slabs. The floors were generally tessellated. It was an innovation of

the Roman architect to build houses of three or more stories, but it

was probably only a starveling poet who would live on the fourth floor.

A noble’s house would spread over the ground regardless of space, but

the bedrooms and sometimes the dining-room were upstairs. Externally

the Roman house was a little finer than the Greek, being fronted with

a pillared forecourt and a dwelling for the concierge. At the back the

atrium opened into a colonnaded garden with a fountain, flower-beds,

and shrubbery.

As the Roman’s house was built mainly with a view to coolness, so

his daily life was that of a southerner. Rome was never a healthy

city in the summer, and all who could afford it fled to the country

or the sea-side. Almost every Roman known to us in literature was

either an invalid or a valetudinarian. Malarial fever in its periodic

form was very widely spread, and most of our distinguished friends

pursued a medical regimen. Cæsar was subject to fits of epilepsy,

Cicero was of weak constitution, Horace was a martyr to ophthalmia

as well as malaria, Augustus was always ailing and often at death’s

door. The Roman’s most amiable idiosyncrasy was his devotion to the

bath. Every considerable house had an elaborate bathing department

with at least a hot room built over a furnace, and a cold room with a

swimming-tank. But there were also public baths, on an ever-increasing

scale of magnificence. Agrippa alone built 170 of them at Rome. Rich

and poor alike made it their daily practice to bathe after exercise,

just before their principal meal in the early afternoon. The custom of

the noon-tide siesta was universal, except with prodigies of industry

like Cicero. A great deal of time was spent in lounging abroad through

the streets or under shady colonnades. The streets of Rome, as of all

ancient cities, were extremely narrow, but in the busy parts of the

city all wheeled traffic was forbidden.

The Grandeur That Was Rome: a survey of Roman culture and civilisation · 第 12 / 31 段