THE ROMAN CONSTITUTION.
[Sidenote: The Roman creators of civilization.]
[Sidenote: The Romans sought to govern.]
[Sidenote: The Romans sought to govern through laws.]
[Sidenote: Roman sense of justice.]
It is not from a survey of the material grandeur, or the arts, or the
military prowess of Rome that we get the highest idea of her
civilization. These indicate strength and even genius; but the checks
and balances which were gradually introduced into the government of the
city and empire, by which society was kept together, and a great
prosperity secured for centuries, also show great foresight and
practical wisdom. A State which favored individual development while it
promoted law and order; which secured liberty, while it made the
government stable and respectable; which guaranteed rights to the poorer
citizens, while it placed power in the hands of those who were most
capable of wielding it for the general good, is well worth our
contemplation. The idea of aggrandizement was, it must be confessed, the
most powerful which entered into the Roman mind; but the principles of
national unity, the welfare of citizens, the reign of law, the security
of property, the network of trades and professions, also received
attention there. The aspirations for liberty and national prosperity
never left the Roman mind. The Romans were great creators of
civilization, though in a different sense from the Greeks. What the
principles of art were to the Greeks, those of government were to the
Romans. If the Greeks made statues, the Romans made laws. If the former
speculated on the beautiful, or the good, or the true, the latter
realized the boast of Diogenes--the power to govern men. The passion for
government was the most powerful which a Roman citizen felt, next to the
passion for war. For five hundred years after the expulsion of the
kings, there was the most perfect system of checks and balances in the
government of the state known in the ancient world, and which is
scarcely rivaled in the modern. Power was so wisely distributed that not
even a successful general was able to gain a dangerous preeminence.
Every citizen was a politician, and every Senator a statesman. For five
hundred years there was neither anarchy nor military despotism. If every
citizen knew how to fight, every citizen also knew how to govern, to
submit. No consul dared to exceed his trust; no general, till Caesar,
ventured to cross the Rubicon. The Roman Senate never lost its dignity--
a supreme body which controlled all public interests. The Romans were
sufficiently wise to bend to circumstances. Though proud, the patricians
made concessions to plebeians whenever it was necessary. The right of
citizenship was gradually extended throughout the Empire. Paul lived in
a remote city of Asia Minor, but, by virtue of his citizenship, could
appeal to a higher court than that of the governor. The Romans
succeeded, by their wisdom, in extending their institutions over the
countries they had conquered; and every part of the Empire was well
governed even when military despotism had overturned the ancient
constitution. There were, of course, cases of extortion and injustice,
and most governors made large fortunes; yet the provinces were better
administered, and the rule was more in accordance with justice than
under the native princes. Throughout the vast limits of the Empire, life
and property were safe, and the roads were free of robbers; nor were
there riots in the cities, except on very rare occasions, in which they
were put down with merciless severity. Yet a few hundred men were enough
to preserve order in the largest cities, and a few thousand in the most
extensive provinces. Even under the most tyrannical emperors, justice
and order were enforced. The government was never better administered
than by Tiberius, and further, was never better administered than when
he was abandoned to pleasure in his guarded villa at Capri. There was
the passion to govern the world, but in accordance with laws. The rule
of the Romans was not that of brute force, even when the army was at the
control of the Emperors. The citizens, to the last, enjoyed great social
and political rights. They had great immunities, in reference to
marriage, and the making of wills, and the possession of property. Their
persons were secured from the disgrace of corporal punishment; they
could appeal from the decision of magistrates; they were eligible to
public offices; they were exempted from many oppressive taxes which
still grind down the people in the most civilized states of Europe. The
government of Octavius was the mildest despotism ever known to the
ancient world. That Ulysses of state craft exercised the most extensive
powers under the ancient forms, and all the early emperors disguised
rather than paraded their powers. Contented with real power, the Roman
was careless of its display. He had the tact to rule without seeming to
rule; but rule he must, though not until he had first learned to obey--
obedience to laws and domination were inseparably connected. This made
the Roman yoke endurable, because it was not offensive or unjust. The
Romans were masters of the world by conquest, yet ruled the world they
had subdued by arms in accordance with laws based on the principles of
equity. This sense of justice, in the enjoyment of unbounded domination,
undoubtedly gave permanence to their government. The centurion was ever
present to enforce a decree, but the decree was in accordance with
justice. This was the idea, the recognized principle of government,
although often abused. Paul appealed to Caesar. He might have been
released by the governor, had he not appealed. Here was justice to Paul
in allowing the appeal; and still greater justice in keeping him in
bonds until acquitted by Caesar himself. [Sidenote: Degeneracy under
emperors.]
[Sidenote: Skill of the Romans for government.]
[Sidenote: On what the prosperity was based.]
[Sidenote: Government the great art and science of the Romans.]
[Sidenote: Prosperity of the government.]
It must, however, be confessed that, after the Caesars were fairly
established on their throne, a great indifference to public affairs
ensued. Every office was then, directly or indirectly, in the hands of
the emperor. Cicero expressed the popular sentiment of his day when he
said, "that was the most perfect government which was a combination of
popular and aristocratic authority;"--but in the eighth century of the
city, the system of checks and balances would have fallen to pieces in
the hands of a degenerate people. A constitutional monarchy even was no
longer possible. The vices of the oligarchy, and the fierce reactions of
the democracy, had destroyed all the dreams of the earlier patriots. The
mass of the people had long been passive under the sway of factions and
political intriguers, and they resigned themselves to the despotism of
the emperor without a struggle. But even in this degradation the power
of government remained among the leading classes. The governors of
provinces, taken generally from the Senate and the nobles, were skillful
in their administration of public affairs. They were enlightened in all
political duties. The traditional ideas of government survived for
several generations, even as the mechanism of the army made it powerful
after all real spirit had fled. The Roman still regarded himself as the
favorite of the gods, destined to achieve a vast mission, even the
reduction of the world to political unity. Augustus made every effort,
while he reigned, in the ruin of political institutions, to revive the
forms and traditions of other days. The patricians were favored and
honored, and the Senate still was made to appear august, with a
prostrate world at its feet, to which it was bound to dictate laws and
institutions. Political unity was the grand idea of the Romans, and this
idea has survived to our own times. It was one of the great elements of
Roman civilization. Universal empire was based, in the better days of
the Republic, on public morality, in the iron discipline of families, in
a marvelously well-trained soldiery, in a military system which made the
civil society an army almost ready for the field, in a recognition of
public rights and duties, in a wise system of colonization, in
conciliatory conduct to the conquered races, and in a central power as
the dispenser of all honor and emoluments. The civil wars broke up, in a
measure, this wise and considerate policy; still citizenship extended to
all parts of the empire, even when it was manifest it must soon fall
into the hands of barbarians. And as for the administration of justice,
it was probably better conducted under the emperors than under the
supreme rule of the Senate. Even bad emperors knew how to govern. To the
Roman mind every thing was subordinate to the art of government. And
every characteristic fitted the Romans to govern--energy of will,
practical good sense, the conception of justice, an unyielding pride,
fortitude, courage, and lust of power. And the spirit of domination was
carried out into every thing. It was made a science, an art. Whatever
would contribute to the ascendency of the state was remorselessly
adopted; whatever would interfere with it was abandoned or swept away.
Fierce and tolerant by turns, and as circumstances prompted--such was
the Roman. With submission life was easy, and the government was mild.
And the supreme government rarely entrusted power except to faithful,
capable, and patriotic rulers. The wisest and best were selected for
important offices. The governors of provinces were men of great
experience; they were generals and senators who had passed their term of
active service. They easily made great mistakes. They carried out the
policy of the State. They were acquainted with laws, and the customs of
the people whom they ruled. They were versed in the literature of their
day. They were men of dignity and fortune. They were moderate,
conciliatory, and firm. They were models for rulers for all subsequent
ages. There were, of course, exceptions, but the small number of riots
and rebellions shows the contentment of the people, for they were not
ground down by oppressive laws and exactions, until their spirit was
broken. How munificent were the emperors to such cities as Athens and
Alexandria! Athens was the seat of learning and culture, to the very end
of the empire. Arts and literature and science were fostered in all the
cities. They were adopted as parts of the empire, not treated like
conquered territories. After the destruction of Carthage, the Romans had
no jealousy of cities that once were equals. Their arts were made to
subserve Roman greatness, indeed, but they were left free to develop
their resources. The development of resources was a vital principle of
the Roman government. Spain, Syria, and Egypt, were never more
prosperous than under the imperial rule. All the provinces were more
thriving under the emperors than they had been under their ancient
kings, until the era of barbaric invasions. If war had been the mission
of the republic, peace was the pride of the empire. There were no wars
of importance for three hundred years, except those of necessity. The
end of the emperors was to govern, to preserve peace, and secure
obedience to the laws.
[Sidenote: The aristocracy the real rulers of the state.]
[Sidenote: Defects of Democratic ascendency.]
[Sidenote: The people unfit to govern when unenlightened.]
[Sidenote: Popular element in the Roman state.]
[Sidenote: Rich Plebeians had a great influence in the government.]
But we must bear in mind that, whatever were the popular rights enjoyed
in the republican era, and however vast were the powers wielded by the
emperors after liberty had fled, yet the constitution of Roman society
was essentially aristocratic. All the great conquests were made under
the rule of patricians, and all the leading men under the emperors were
nobles. The government was virtually, from first to last, in the hands
of the aristocracy. Still there was an important popular element,
especially in the latter days of the republic, to which revolutionary
leaders appealed, like the Gracchi, Marius, Catiline, and Caesar. One of
the most humiliating lessons which we learn of antiquity, we are forced
to own, was the signal incapacity of the people to govern themselves,
when they had obtained a greater share of power than the old
constitution had allowed. The republic did not long survive when
successful generals and eloquent demagogues were sustained by the
people. Had Rome been a democracy, as some suppose, the empire never
could have been established. We comfort ourselves, however, by the
reflection, that when the people surrendered themselves to factions and
demagogues and tyrants, they were both ignorant and depraved. Self-
government has never yet succeeded, because there have never been virtue
and intelligence among the masses. So long as we can boast of virtue and
intelligence among the people, we need not despair with the government
in their hands. An enlightened self-interest will suggest the wisest
policy. We only despair of the government of the people when they are
ignorant, brutal, and wicked. As there was no period in the ancient
world when they were not unenlightened, we are reconciled to the fact
that a wise and vigorous administration of public affairs was always
conducted by kings or nobles who had intelligence and patriotism, if
they were proud and imperious. Whatever faith we may justly cherish in
reference to popular sovereignty, grounded on the principles of natural
justice, and the hopes which are held out as the fruit of Christian
ideas, still, as a fact, there is but little in the history of the Roman
commonwealth which reflects much glory on the people, except when
controlled and marshalled by the aristocracy. Just so far as the popular
element prevailed, the state was hurried on to ruin. The aristocratical
element had the ascendency when Rome was most prosperous and most
respected. Yet, while the Roman constitution was essentially
aristocratic for five hundred years, it had a strong popular element
mingled with it. The patricians had the chief power, but they were not
lords and masters in so absolute a sense as to trample on the people
with impunity, nor were they able to deprive them of their rights, or of
all share in the government. They were not feudal nobles, nor a Venetian
oligarchy. And yet it were a mistake to suppose that the distinction
between the classes implied that the aristocratic power was lodged with
the patricians alone. The patricians were not necessarily aristocrats,
nor the plebeians a rabble. The political distinctions passed away
without destroying social inequalities. There were great families among
the plebeians which really belonged to the aristocratic class, at least
in the time of Cicero. Aristocracy may have been based on birth, as in
England, but it was sustained by wealth, as in that country. A very rich
man gained, ultimately, admission to the noble class, as Rothschild has
in London. Without wealth to uphold distinctions, any aristocracy soon
becomes contemptible. That organization of society is most aristocratic
which confers great political and social privileges on a few men, and
retains these privileges from generation to generation, as in France
during the reign of Louis XV. The state of society at Rome under the
republic, favored the monopoly of offices among powerful families. It
was considered very remarkable for even Cicero to rise to the highest
honors of the state with his magnificent genius, character, attainments,
and services; but he shared the consulship with a man of very ordinary
capacity. The great offices were all in the hands of the aristocracy,
from the expulsion of the kings to the times of Julius Caesar. Even the
tribunes of the people ultimately were selected from powerful families.
[Sidenote: The Patricians.]
[Sidenote: The Roman _Gens_.]
The Roman people--_Romanus populus_--under the kings, the original
citizens, were the warriors who built Rome, and conquered the
surrounding cities and districts. They were called _patres_, which
is synonymous with Patricians. [Footnote: Cicero, _De Repub._, ii.
12 Liv., i. 8.] They were united among themselves by kindred and by
political and religious ties. They supported themselves by agriculture
although engaged continually in war. They consisted originally of three
tribes, which gradually were united into the sovereign people. The first
tribe was a Latin colony, and settled on the Palatine Hill; the second
were Sabine settlers on the Quirinal; the third were Etruscans, who
occupied the Caelian. They were distinct, at first, and were not united
fully till the time of Tarquinius Priscus, himself an Etruscan.
[Footnote: Dionys., ii. 62.] As there were no other Roman citizens but
these patricians, they had no exclusive rights under the kings, and
hence there was then no aristocracy of birth. Each of these three tribes
of citizens consisted of ten curiae, and each curia of ten decuries, or
gentes. The three tribes, therefore, contained three hundred gentes. A
gens was a family, and the gentes were aggregates of kindred families.
[Footnote: Nieb., Lect. V.] The name of a gens was generally
characterized by the termination _eia_ or _ia_, as Julia, Cornelia,
and it is to be presumed that each gens had a common ancestor.
But with the growth of the city it came to pass that a gens often
included a great number of families; we read of three hundred Fabii
forming the gens Fabia in the year 275. These families composed,
ultimately, the aristocracy. They were the people who filled all
offices, and alone had the right of voting in the assemblies. As the
gentes were subdivisions of the three ancient tribes, the _populus_
alone had _gentes_, so that to be a patrician and to have a gens
were synonymous. With the growth of Rome new gentes or families were
added which did not claim descent from the ancient tribes. The powerful
gens of the Claudia came to Rome with Atta Claudius, their head, after
the expulsion of the kings. Tullus Hostilius incorporated the Julii,
Servilii and other gentes with the patricians. This ruling class, the
descendants of the conquerors, became a powerful aristocracy, and
ultimately learned to value pride of blood. There are very few names in
Roman history, until the time of Marius, which did not belong to this
noble class. What proud families were the Servilii, the Claudii, the
Julii, the Cornelii, the Fabii, the Valerii, the Sempronii, the Octavii,
the Sergii, and others. [Footnote: Liv., i. 33. Dionys., iii. 31.]
The _Equites_ were originally elected from the patricians, and were
cavalry soldiers, and did not form a distinct class till the time of the
Gracchi. They were composed of rich citizens, whose wealth enabled them
to become judices. They had the privilege of wearing a gold ring, and
had seats reserved for them, like the Senate, at the theatre and circus.
They increased in number with the increase of wealth, and formed an
honorable corps from which the highest officers of the army and the
civil magistrates were chosen. Admission to this body was an
introduction to public life, and was a test of social position. It was
composed of rich plebeians as well as patricians, and was based wholly
on wealth. Pliny says, "It became the third order in the state, and to
the title of _Senatus Populusque Romanus_, there began to be added,
_et Equestris ordo_."
[Sidenote: The Roman plebs.]
[Sidenote: The tribunes.]
[Sidenote: Gradual increase of their power.]
[Sidenote: Their usurpations.]
Beside this _Romanus populus_, which constituted the ruling class
under kings, was another body, made up of conquered people. In early
times their number was small, nor did they appear as a distinct class
until the reign of Tullus Hostilius. After the subjection of Alba, the
head of the Latin Confederacy, great numbers were transferred to Rome,
and received settlements on the Caelian Hill, and were kept under
submission to the patricians. As the Roman conquests extended, their
numbers increased, until they formed the larger part of the population.
They were called _plebs_, or commonalty, and had no political
privileges whatever. They had not even the right of suffrage; but they
were enrolled in the army, [Footnote: Liv., i. 33. Dionys., iii. 31. ]
and made to bear the expenses of the state. At first they were not
allowed to intermarry with the patricians. Their oppression provoked
resistance. The struggle which ensued is one of the most memorable in
Roman history. The haughty oligarchy were obliged gradually to concede
rights. These rights the _plebs_ retained. First they gained a law
which prevented patricians from taking usurious interest. They secured
the appointment of tribunes for their protection. Soon after they had
the right of summoning before their own _Comitia tributa_ any one
who violated their rights. In 449 they had influence sufficient to
establish the Connubium, by which they could intermarry with patricians.
In 421 the plebeians were admitted to the quaestorship. Then, after a
fierce contest, they were made decemvirs. Their next right was the
dignity of the consulship, and led to the dictatorship. In 351 they
secured the censorship, and in 336 the praetorship. Political
distinctions now vanished. The possession of a share of the great
offices created powerful families, and these were incorporated with the
aristocracy. The great privilege of securing tribunes was the first step
to political power, and the most important in the constitutional history
of the state. And it was the tribunes who gradually usurped the greatest
powers. They assumed the right, in 456, of convoking even the Senate.
They also had the right to be present in the deliberations of the
Senate; as their persons were inviolable, they interceded against any
action which a magistrate might undertake during his term of office, and
even a command issued by a praetor. They could compel the Senate to
submit a question to a fresh consultation, and ultimately compelled the
consuls to appoint a dictator. Their power grew to such a height that
they acquired the right of proposing to the _Comitia tributa_, or
the Senate, measures on nearly all the important affairs of the state,
and finally were elected from among the Senators themselves.
[Sidenote: Advancement of Plebeians.]
Through the institution of tribunes, and other circumstances, especially
the increase of wealth, the plebeians, originally so unimportant and
insignificant that they could not obtain admission into the Senate, nor
the high offices of state, nor the occupancy of the public lands,
ultimately obtained all the rights of the patricians, so that gradually
the political distinctions between patricians and plebeians vanished
altogether, 286 B.C., and the term _populus_ was applied to them as
well as to the patricians. [Footnote: Liv., iv. 44; v. 11,12. Cicero
_de Repub._, ii. 37.]
[Sidenote: Gradual increase of their power.]
These rights were only secured by bitter and fierce contests. The
plebeians, during their long struggle, did not seek power to gratify
their ambition, but to protect themselves from oppression. Nor was the
power which they obtained abused until near the close of the Republic.
But while they ultimately were blended, politically, with the
patricians, still the latter monopolized most of the great offices of
the state until the time of Cicero, and socially, always were
preeminent. Yet there were many noble plebeian families who were blended
with the aristocratic class. Aristocracy survived, after the political
distinctions between the two classes were abrogated. Rome was never a
democracy. Great families, whether patrician or plebeian, controlled the
State, either by their wealth or social connections. The Roman nobility
was really composed of all the families rendered illustrious by the
offices they had filled. And as the great officers were taken generally
from the Senate, that body was particularly august.
[Sidenote: The Senate.]
[Sidenote: The prerogative of Senators.]
Until the usurpation of Caesar, the Senate was the great controlling
power of the republic. It not only had peculiar privileges and powers,
but a monopoly of offices. It always remained powerful, in spite of the
victories of the plebeians. The laws proclaimed equality, but for fifty-
nine years after the plebeians had the right of appointment as military
tribunes, only eighteen were plebeians, [Footnote: _Hist. Julius
Caesar_, by Napoleon; chap. ii. 5.] while two hundred and forty-six
were patricians; and while the right of admission to the Senate was
acknowledged on principle, yet no one could enter it without having
obtained a decree of the censor, or exercised a curule magistracy,--
favors almost always reserved for the aristocracy. The Senate was a
judicial and legislative body, and numbered for several centuries but
three hundred men, selected from the patricians. At first they were
appointed by the kings, afterwards by the consuls, and subsequently by
the censors. But as all those who had been appointed by the
_populus_ to the great offices had admission into this body, the
people, that is, the patricians, virtually nominated the candidates for
the Senate. But all magistrates were not necessarily members of the
Senate, only those whom the censors selected from among them, and the
curule magistrates during their office. It was from these curule
magistrates that vacancies were filled up. The office of senator was for
life. When the plebeians obtained the great offices, the Senate of
course represented the whole people, as it formerly had represented the
_populus_. But it was never a democratic assembly, for all its
members belonged to the nobles. It required, under Augustus, 1,200,000
sesterces to support the senatorial dignity. Only a rich man could be,
therefore, a senator. Nor could he carry on any mercantile business. The
Senate was ever composed of men who had rendered great public services,
or who were distinguished for wealth and talents. It was probably the
most dignified and the proudest body of men ever assembled. The powers
of the Senate were enormous. It had the general superintendence of
matters of religion and foreign relations; it commanded the levies of
troops; it regulated duties and taxes; it gave audience to ambassadors;
it proposed, for a long time, the candidates for office to the
_Comitia_; it determined upon the way that war should be conducted;
it decreed to what provinces the consuls and praetors should be sent; it
appointed governors of provinces; it sent out embassies to foreign
states; it carried on the negotiations with foreign ambassadors; it
declared martial law in the appointment of dictators, and it decreed
triumphs to fortunate generals. In short it was the supreme power in the
state, and was the medium through which all the affairs of government
passed. It was neither an hereditary, nor a popular body, yet
represented the state--at first the patrician order, and finally the
whole people, retaining to the end its aristocratic character. The
senators wore on their tunics a broad purple stripe,--a badge of
distinction, like a modern decoration,--and they had the exclusive
rights of the orchestra at theatres and amphitheatres. [Footnote: See
article in Smith's _Dict. of Ant._, by Dr. Schmitz.] Under the
emperors, the Senate was degraded, and was made entirely subservient to
their will, and a mouth-piece; still it survived all the changes of the
constitution, and was always a dignified and privileged body. It
combined, in its glory, more functions than the English Parliament; it
was convoked by the curule magistrates, and finally by the tribunes. The
most ancient place of assembly was the Curia Hostilia, though
subsequently many temples were used. The majority of votes decided a
question, and the order in which senators spoke and voted was determined
by their rank, in the following order: president of the Senate, consuls,
censors, praetors, aediles, tribunes, quaestors. Their decisions, called
_Senatus Consulta_, were laws--_leges_--and were entrusted to
the care of aediles and tribunes. [Footnote: Nieb. _Roman Hist._,
viii. p. 264.]
[Sidenote: The Senate composed of patricians and plebeians.]
[Sidenote: The Senate hold the great offices of state.]
Such was the Roman Senate--an assembly of nobles, whether patrician or
plebeian. The descendants of all who had filled curule magistracies were
_nobiles_, and had the privilege of placing in the atrium of the
house the images and titles of their ancestors--an heraldic distinction
in substance. And as the patricians carried back their pedigree to the
remotest historical period, there was great pride of blood. Few
plebeians could boast of a remote and illustrious ancestry, and every
plebeian who obtained a curule office, was the founder of his family's
nobility, like Cicero--a _novus homo_. This nobility contrived to
keep possession of all the great offices, and it was difficult for a new
man to get access to their ranks. The distinction of Patrician
and Plebeian was secondary, after the _Gracchi_ to that of
_Nobilitas_, yet it was rare to find a patrician gens the families
of which had not enjoyed the highest honors many times over. Thus the
aristocracy was composed of the families of those who had held the
highest offices of the state; but as these offices were controlled by
the Senate and enjoyed by the patricians chiefly, it was difficult to
determine whether nobility was the result of patrician blood, or the
possession of great offices. A man could scarcely be a patrician who had
not held a great office; nor could he often hold a great office unless
he were a patrician. The great offices were held in succession by the
members of the Senate. The two consuls, the ten tribunes, the eight
praetors in the time of Sulla--the twenty quaestors, together with the
governors of provinces, and the generals who were selected from the
Senate, or belonged to it, would necessarily compose a large part of the
nobility, when their term of office lasted but a limited time, so that a
senator with any ability was sure, in the course of his life, of the
highest honors of the state.
[Sidenote: But only those who had distinguished themselves.]
The great executive officers, therefore, belonged to the noble class,
not of necessity, but as a general thing. Cicero was a _novus
homo_, and yet rose by his talents to the highest dignities. It was
rare, however, to confer the highest offices on those who had not
distinguished themselves in war. Military fame, after all, gave the
greatest prestige to the Roman name. Consuls commanded armies, but they
would not have been chosen consuls except for military, as well as
political, talent.
[Sidenote: The Consuls.]
The consul was, after the abolition of the monarchy, the highest officer
of the state. It was not till the year 366 B.C. that a plebeian obtained
this dignity. The powers of consuls were virtually those of the old
kings, with the exception of priestly authority. They convened the
Senate, introduced ambassadors, called together the people, conducted
elections, commanded the armies and never appeared in public without
lictors. Nor were they shorn of their powers till Julius Caesar assumed
the dictatorship. The whole internal machinery of the state was under
their control. But their term of office lasted only a single year. Their
election took place in the _Comitia Centuriata_.
[Sidenote: The censors.]
The censors were next in dignity, and like the consuls, there were two,
and elected in the same manner under the presidency of a consul; only
men of consular rank were chosen to this high office, and hence it was
really higher than the consulship. The censors were chosen for a longer
term than the consuls, and had the oversight of the public morals, the
care of the census, and the administration of the finances. They could
brand with ignominy the highest persons of the state, and could elect to
the Senate, and exclude from it unworthy men. They had, with the aediles,
the control of the public buildings and all public works. They could
take away from a knight his horse, and punish extravagance in living, or
the improper dissolution of the marriage rite. They were held in the
greatest reverence, and when they died were honored with magnificent
funerals.
[Sidenote: The praetors.]
Next in rank were the praetors, at first two in number, and ultimately
sixteen. They exercised the judicial power, both in civil and criminal
cases.
[Sidenote: The aediles.]
The aediles were also curule magistrates, and to them was entrusted the
care of the public buildings, and the superintendence of public
festivals. They were the keepers of the decrees of the Senate, and of
the plebiscita. They superintended the distribution of water, the care
of the streets, the drainage of the city, and the distribution of corn
to the people. It was their business to see that no new deities were
introduced, and they had the general superintendence of the police, and
the inspection of baths. Their office entailed large expenses, and they
were forced into great extravagance to gain popularity, as in the case
of Julius Caesar and Aemilius Scaurus; but the aediles exercised extensive
powers, which, however, were essentially diminished under the emperors.
[Sidenote: The tribunes.]
Allusion has already been made to the tribunes, in connection with the
development of the plebeian power. At first they were only two, then in
creased to five, and finally to ten. It was their business to protect
the plebs from the oppression of nobles, but their authority was so much
increased in the time of Julius Caesar that they could veto an ordinance
of the Senate. [Footnote: Caesar, _De Beil Civ_., 1, 2.] They not
only could stop a magistrate in his proceedings, but command their
viatores to seize a consul or a censor, to imprison him, or throw him
from the Tarpeian rock. [Footnote: Liv. ii. 56, iv. 26; Cicero, _De
Legibus_, iii. 9.] The college of tribunes had the power of making
edicts. After the passage of the Hortensian law, there was no power
equal to theirs, and they could dictate even to the Senate itself. In
the latter days of the republic, the tribunes were generally elected
from among the senators. It was the vast influence which the people had
obtained through the tribunes which led to the usurpation of Caesar; for
he, as well as Marius, rose into power by courting them against the
interests of the aristocracy.
[Sidenote: The quaestors.]
The last of the great magistrates whose office entitled them to a seat
in the Senate were the quaestors, who had charge of the public money.
Originally only two in number, they were raised by Sulla to twenty, and
by Caesar to forty, for political influence. As the Senate had the
supreme direction of the finances they were merely its agents or
paymasters. The proconsul or praetor, who had the administration of a
province, was attended with a quaestor to regulate the collection of the
revenues. The quaestors also were the paymasters of the army.
Such were the great executive officers of the state, having a seat in
the Senate, and belonging to the noble class by their official position
as well as by birth. No one could be consul until he had passed through
all these offices successively, except the censorship.
[Sidenote: Pontifex maximus.]
There was, however, another great Roman dignitary who held his office
for life, which was one of transcendent importance. He was at the head
of the college of priests, which had the superintendence of all matters
of religion. The college of pontiffs, of which, under Julius Caesar,
there were sixteen, were not priests, but stood above all priests, and
regulated the worship of the gods, and punished offenses against
religion. The chief pontiff lived in a public palace in the Via Sacra,
and might also hold other offices. It is a great proof of the talents of
Caesar and of the estimation in which he was held, that, at the age of
thirty-seven, he was chosen to this high dignity, against the powerful
opposition of Catulus, prince of the Senate, and when he had only
reached the aedileship.
[Sidenote: Assemblies of the people.]
[Sidenote: The Comitia Cenuriata.]
In regard to the assemblies of the people, where they voted for the
great officers of state, it must be borne in mind that they were not
made up of the rabble, but of the populus or the patricians till nearly
the close of the republic. Each of the thirty curia had its building for
the discussion of political and legal questions. They had also
collectively an assembly, called _Comitia Curiata_, where the
people voted on the measures proposed by the magistrates. The votes were
given by the curiae, each curia having one collective vote. The assembly
originated nothing, but decided upon the life of Roman citizens, upon
peace and war, and the election of magistrates. This was the primitive
form under the kings. But Servius Tullius instituted the _Comitia
Centuriata_, and hence divided the populus into six property classes,
and one hundred and ninety-three centuriae. The first class was composed
of ninety-eight centuriae, with a property qualification of one hundred
thousand asses; the second of twenty-two centuriae with seventy-five
thousand asses; the third of twenty, with fifty thousand asses; the
fourth of twenty-two, with twenty-five thousand asses; the fifth of
thirty, with eleven thousand asses; and the sixth of any one of those
below twelve and a half minae. Yet this class was the most numerous. The
wealthier classes voted first, and when a majority of the centuries was
obtained the voting stopped. Hence the power was virtually in the hands
of the rich; for, united, they made a majority before the poorer classes
were called upon to vote. The _Comitia Centuriata_ elected the
magistrates and made laws, and formed the highest court of appeal, but
all its decisions had to be sanctioned by the curiae, although in course
of time the curia was a formality. The centuries met in the Campus
Martius, and were presided over by the consuls, who read the names of
the candidates. In the assemblies by centuries, the vote of the first
class prevailed over all the others; in the _comitia_ by curiae the
patricians were supreme.
[Sidenote: The Comitia Tributa.]
[Sidenote: Decline of power of the comitia.]
The _Comitia Tributa_ represented the thirty Roman tribes according
to the Servian constitution, to whom was originally given the right to
elect inferior magistrates. This was a plebian assembly, and had very
insignificant powers, chiefly relating to the local affairs of the
tribes. But when these tribes began to be real representatives of the
people, with the increase of the plebeian classes, matters affecting the
whole state were brought before them by the tribunes. This gave to the
assembly the initiative of measures, which was sanctioned by a law of L.
Valerius Publicola, B.C. 449. This law gave to the decrees passed by the
tribes the power of a real _lex_, binding upon the whole people,
provided it had the sanction of the Senate and the populus in the
_Comitia Centuriata_. In 287 B.C. the Hortensian law made the
plebiscita independent of the sanction of the Senate. When the plebeians
began to be recognized as an essential element in the state, it was
found inconvenient to have the first class, which included the equites,
so greatly preponderant in the comitia of the centuries; and it was
designed to blend the _Comitia Centuriata_ and _the Tributa_
in such a manner as to make only one assembly. This took place after the
completion of the thirty-five tribes, B.C. 241. The citizens of each
tribe were divided into five property classes, and each tribe into ten
centuries, making three hundred and fifty centuries. This comitia was
far more democratic than the comitia of the centuries, and was guided by
the tribunes. When all the Italians were incorporated with the thirty-
five tribes, violence and bribery became the order of the day. Sulla
took away the jurisdiction of the people, and Julius Caesar encroached
still more on popular rights when he decided upon peace and war in
connection-with the Senate--which great question was formerly settled by
the comitia alone. The people retained nothing under him but the
election of magistrates, which amounted to little, since Caesar had the
right to appoint half the magistrates himself, with the exception of the
consuls. After the death of Caesar, the comitia continued to be held, but
was always controlled by the rulers, whose unlimited powers were
ultimately complied with without resistance. Finally the comitia became
a mere farce, and all legislation passed away forever, and was
completely in the hands of the emperor and Senate.
[Sidenote: The nobles retain the chief ascendency.]
[Sidenote: The dictator.]
[Sidenote: The idea of popular government.]
[Sidenote: The Senate retains all real power.]
Thus it would appear that the Roman constitution was essentially
aristocratic, especially for three hundred years after the expulsion
of kings. The _Senate_ and the _populus_ had the whole power.
Gradually, as wealth increased, the _equites_ became an influential
order, not less aristocratical than the patricians. The _plebs_
were not of much consideration till the time of the Gracchi, and always
obtained office with difficulty. It was two hundred years after the
expulsion of kings before the plebeians could even obtain a share of the
public lands. So long as the aristocracy preserved their virtue and
patriotism, the state was most ably administered, and continually
increased in wealth and power. The conquest of Italy was entirely under
the regime of nobles, and even when wealthy plebeian families mingled
with the ancient patricians there was still great difficulty in reaching
preferment, without the advantages of birth. [Footnote: Mommsen,
_Roman Hist_., i. p. 241.] In fourteen years, from 399 to 412, the
patricians allowed only six plebeians to reach the consulship. The lives
of the citizens were protected by the laws, but public opinion remained
powerless at the assassination of those who incurred the hatred of the
Senate. The comitia were free, but the Senate had at its disposal either
the veto of the tribunes or the religious scruples of the people, for a
consul could prevent the meeting of the assemblies, and the augurs could
cut short their deliberations. Even the dictatorship was often a means
of oppressing the plebs, and was a lever in the hands of the
aristocracy, since the dictator was appointed by the consuls under the
direction of the Senate. [Footnote: Liv., viii. 23.] He was a patrician
as a matter of course, until the political distinctions between
patrician and plebeian were removed, and had absolute authority for six
months. He was not held responsible for his acts while in office,
[Footnote: Becker, _Handbuch der Romanisch Alterthumer_, vii. p. 2;
Nieb. _History of Rome_. vol. i. p. 563.] nor was there any appeal
from his decisions. He was preceded by twenty-four lictors, and was
virtually supreme. Between 390 and 416 there were eighteen dictators.
The Senate thus remained all-powerful, in spite of the victories of the
plebeians, and such were its patriotism and intelligence that it
preserved its preponderance. It was during the conquest of Italy that
aristocratic power shone in all its splendor, and the most able men were
entrusted with public affairs. Every thing was sacrificed to patriotism,
and discipline was enforced with cruelty. The most powerful patricians
readily exposed their lives in battle, and a town became a people which
ultimately embraced the world. When the plebeians had grown to be a
power the decline of the republic commenced, and a new organization was
necessary. Great chieftains became dictators for life, and the imperial
sceptre was seized by an unscrupulous but enlightened general. The Roman
_populus_ in an important sense carried out the great idea of self-
government, but, strictly speaking, self-government, as applied to the
people generally, never existed in the Roman Commonwealth. But the idea
was advanced which gave birth to future republics. Nor did the fall of
the old patrician oligarchy divest the Roman commonwealth of its
aristocratic character, for a new aristocracy arose. When the plebeian
families obtained the consulate and other high offices of state, they
were put on a level with the old patrician families, and were allowed
the privilege of placing the wax images of their illustrious ancestors
in the family hall, and to have these images carried in the funeral
procession. As curule magistrates, they had a seat in the Senate, and
wore the insignia of rank--the gold finger-ring and the purple border on
the toga. "The result of the Licinian laws," says Mommsen, "in reality,
only amounted to what we now call the creation of a new batch of
officers." [Footnote: Mommsen, B. III. c. xi.] As all the descendants of
those who had enjoyed the curule magistracy were entitled to the
privilege of these distinctions, the nobility became hereditary. And as
the great officers of state were generally selected from this class,
since they controlled the comitia, the nobility was not merely
hereditary, but it was a _governing_ nobility. The nobility had the
possession of the Senate itself. It monopolized the great offices of
state. The stability of the Roman aristocracy is seen in the fact, that,
from the year 388 to 581, when the consulate was held by one patrician
and one plebeian, one hundred and forty of the consuls, out of the three
hundred and eighty-six, belonged to sixteen great houses. The Cornelii
furnished thirty consuls in one hundred and ninety-three years, the
Valerii eighteen, the Claudii twelve, the Aemilii fifteen, the Fabii
twelve, the Manlii ten, the Postumii eight, the Servilii seven, the
Sulpicii eight, the Papirii four, to say nothing of other curule
offices. Thus the nobility was not composed exclusively of patrician
families, although these were the most numerous, but of old plebeian
families also, in the same way that the English House of Lords is
composed of families which trace their origin to Saxons as well as
Normans, although the Normans, for several centuries, were the governing
class. And as the House of Lords has accessions occasionally from the
ranks of the people, in consequence of great wealth, or political
interest, or eminent genius, or signal success in war, so the Roman
nobility was increased, as old families died out, by the successful
generals who gained the great offices of state. Marius arose from the
people, but his exploits in the field of battle insured his entrance
among the nobility in consequence of the offices he held, even as the
Lord Chancellors of England, who have been eminent lawyers merely, are
made herditary peers in consequence of their judicial position.
[Sidenote: Roman citizens.]
The Roman burgesses again were any thing but a rabble. They were
composed of men of standing and wealth. If they did not compose the
motive-power, they constituted a firm foundation of the state. They had
a clear conception of the common good, and a sagacity in the election of
rulers, and a spirit of sacrifice for the general interests. They had a
lofty patriotism that nothing could seduce. The rabble of Rome were of
no account until the enormous wealth of the senatorial houses raised up
clients and parasites. And when this rabble, who were merely the
dependents of the rich, obtained the privilege of voting, then the
decline of liberties was rapid and fearful, since they were merely the
tools of powerful demagogues.
[Sidenote: Balance of power.]
Thus among the Romans, until the prostration of their liberties, the
powers of government were not in the hands of kings, as among the
Orientals, nor in those of the aristocracy, exclusively, nor in those of
the people; but in all combined, one class acting as a check against
another class. They were shared between the Senate, the magistrates, and
the people in their assemblies. Theoretically, the _populus_ was
the real sovereign by whom power was delegated; but, for several
centuries, the _populus_ meant the patricians, who alone could take
part in the assemblies. The preponderating influence was exercised by
the Senate. The judicial, the legislative, and the executive authority
were as clearly defined as in our times. The magistrates were all
elected by the Senate or the people, and sometimes proposed by the one
and confirmed by the other. No case, involving the life of a Roman
citizen, could be decided except by the _Comitia Centuriata_. The
election of a magistrate, or the passing of a law, though made on the
ground of a _senatus consultum_, yet required the sanction of the
curiae. In legislative measures, a _senatus consultum_ was brought
before the people by the consul, or the senator who originated the
measure, after it had previously been exhibited in public for seventeen
days. The inferior magistrates, whose office it was to superintend
affairs of local interest, were elected by the _Comitia Tributa_.
All the magistrates, however great their power, could, at the expiration
of their office, be punished for transcending their trust. No person was
above the authority of the laws. No one class could subvert the
liberties and prerogatives of another. The Senate had the most power,
but it could not ride over the Constitution. The consuls were not the
creatures of the Senate; they were elected by the centuries, and
presided over the Senate, as well as the assembly of the people. The
abuse of power by a consul was prevented by his colleague, and by the
certainty of being called to account on the expiration of his office.
His power was also limited by the Senate, since he was dependent upon
it. There was no absolute power exercised at Rome, except by the
dictators, but they were appointed only in a national crisis, and then
only for six months. Unless their power were perpetuated, not even they
could overturn the constitution. The senators again, the most powerful
body in the state, were not entirely independent. They could not elect
members of their own body, nor keep them in office. The censors had the
right of electing the senators from among the ex-magistrates and the
equites, and of excluding such as they deemed unworthy. And as the
Senate was thus composed wholly of men who had held the highest offices
or had great wealth, it was a body of great experience and wisdom. Yet
even this august assembly was obliged to submit to the introduction of
any subject of discussion by the tribune. What a counterpoise to the
authority of this powerful body were the tribunes! From their right of
appearing in the Senate, and of taking part in its discussions, and from
their being the representatives of the whole people, in whom power was
supposed primarily to be lodged, they gradually obtained the right of
intercession against any action which a magistrate might undertake
during the time of his office, and without giving a reason. They could
not only prevent a consul from convening the Senate, but could veto an
ordinance of the Senate itself. They could even seize a consul and a
censor and imprison him. Thus was power marvelously distributed, even
while it remained in the hands of the higher classes. The people were
not powerless when their assemblies could make laws and appoint
magistrates, and when their tribunes could veto the most important
measures. The consuls could not remain in office long enough to be
dangerous, and the senators could be ejected from their high position
when flagrantly unworthy. "The _nobiles_ had no legal privileges
like a feudal aristocracy, but they were bound together by a common
distinction derived from a legal title, and by a common interest; and
their common interest was to endeavor to confine the election to all the
high magistracies to the members of their own body." The term
_nobilitas_ implied that some one of a man's ancestors had filled a
curule magistracy, and it also implied the possession of wealth.
Theoretically it would seem that the _nobiles_ were very numerous,
since so many people can ordinarily boast of an illustrious ancestor;
but practically the class was not so large as we might expect. A noble
might be poor, but still, like Sulla, he remained noble. The distinction
of patrician was, long before the reforms of the Gracchi, of secondary
importance; that of _nobilitas_ remained to the close of the
republic. The nobility kept themselves exclusive and powerful from the
possession of the great offices of state from generation to generation;
they prevented their own extinction by admitting into their ranks those
who distinguished themselves to an eminent degree.
[Sidenote: The reign of demagogues.]
But this state of things applied only to the republic in its palmy days.
When democratical influences favored the ascendency of demagogues,--thus
far in the history of our world, the inevitable consequence of a greater
extension of popular liberties than what the people are prepared for,--
then wholesome restraints were removed, and the people were the most
enslaved, when they thought themselves most free. There is no more
melancholy slavery than the slavery of the passions. Ignorant self-
indulgent people are led by their passions; they are rarely influenced
by reason or by enlightened self-interest. Those who most skillfully and
unscrupulously appeal to popular passions, when the people have power,
have necessarily the ascendency in the community. The people, deceived,
flattered, headstrong, follow them willingly. In times of war, and
especially among a martial people, military chieftains, by inflaming the
warlike passions, by holding out exaggerated notions of glory, by
appealing to vanity and patriotism mingled, have ever had a most
extraordinary influence in republics. They have also great influence in
monarchies, when the monarch is crazed by the passion of military
success. Monarchs, with the passions of the people, are led by men who
flatter them even as the people are led. Hence the reign of favorites
with kings. The ascendency of favorites, with sovereigns like Louis
XIII., or even like Louis XIV., is maintained by the same policy as that
which animated Marius and Caesar, or animates the popular favorites of
our times. And this ascendency may be for the better or the worse,
according to the character of the demagogue rulers, or royal favorites.
When a Richelieu or a Cavour holds the reins, a country may be
indirectly benefited by the wisdom of their public acts. When a
Buckingham or a Catiline prevails, a nation suffers a calamity. In
either case, the power which is conceded to be legitimate becomes a
mockery. With Caesar, the popular power is a mere name, even, as with
Richelieu, the kingly is a shadow. In the better days of the Roman
republic, the executive power was kept in a healthy state by the great
authority of the Senate, and the senatorial influence was prevented from
undue encroachment by the watchfulness of the tribunes. And when the
aristocratical ascendency was most marked, the aristocratical body had
too much virtue and ability to be enslaved by ambitious and able men of
their own number. Had the Roman Senate, in the height of its power, been
composed of ignorant, inexperienced, selfish, unpatriotic members, then
it would have been easy for a great intellect among them, whether
accompanied by virtue or not, by appealing perpetually to their pride,
to their rank, to their privileges, to their peculiar passions, to have
led them, as Pitt led the House of Commons. The real rulers of our world
are few, in any community, or under any form of government. They are
always dangerous, when there is a low degree of virtue or intelligence
among those whom they represent. Certain it is, that their power is
nearly absolute when they are sustained by passion or prejudice. The
representative of a fanatical constituency has no continued power,
unless he perpetually flatters those whom, in his heart, he knows to be
lost to the control of reason. And his influence is greater or less,
according to the strength of the popular passions which he inflames, or
in which, as is often the case, he shares. The honest representative of
fanatics is himself a fanatic. Thus Cromwell had so great an ascendency
with his party, because he felt more strongly than they in matters where
they sympathized. But the liberties of Rome were not overturned by
fanatical rulers, but by those who availed themselves of the passions
which they themselves did not feel, in order to compass their selfish
ends. And that is the greater danger in republics--that bad men rise by
the suffrage of foolish people whom they deceive, by affecting to fall
in with their wishes, like Napoleon and Caesar, rather than that honest
men climb to power by the very excess of their enthusiasm, like
Cromwell, or Peter the Hermit. Hence a Mirabeau is more dangerous than a
Robespierre. The former would have betrayed the people he led; the
latter would have urged them on to consistent courses, even if the way
was lined with death. Had Mirabeau lived, and retained his power, he
would have compromised the Revolution, of which Napoleon was the
product, and the work would have had to be done over. But Robespierre
pushed his principles to their utmost logical sequence, and the nation
was satisfied with their folly, in a practical point of view. Napoleon
arose to rebuke anarchy as well as feudal kings, and though maddened and
intoxicated by war, so that his name is a Moloch, he never dreamed of
restoring the unequal privileges which the Revolution swept away.
[Sidenote: Greatness of the constitution.]
The Roman constitution, as gradually developed by the necessities and
crises which arose, is a wonderful monument of human wisdom. The people
were not ground down. They had rights which they never relinquished; and
they constantly gained new privileges, as they were prepared to
appreciate them, or as they were in danger of subjection by the
governing classes. They never had the ascendency, but they enjoyed
renewed and increasing power, until they were strong enough to tempt
aristocratic demagogues and successful generals. When Caesar condescended
to flatter the people, they had become a power, but a power incapable of
holding its own, or using it for the welfare of the state. Then it was
subverted, as Napoleon rode into absolute dominion over the bridge which
the Revolution had built. And the Roman constitution was remarkable, not
only because it prevented a degrading subjection of the masses, even
while it refused them the rights of government, but because it
maintained a balance among the governing classes themselves, and
restricted the usurpations of powerful families, as well as military
heroes. For nearly five hundred years, not a man arose whom the Romans
feared, or whom they could not control--whom they could not at any time
have hurled from the Tarpeian rock had he contemplated the subversion, I
will not say of the liberties of the people, but of the constitution
which made the aristocracy supreme. There were ambitious and
unscrupulous men, doubtless, among those fortunate generals whom the
Senate snubbed, and whom the people adored. But, great as they were in
war, and powerful from family interest and vast wealth, no one of them
ever dared to make himself supreme until Caesar passed the Rubicon--not
Scipio, crowned with the laurels which he had taken from the head of
Hannibal; not Marius, fresh from his great victories over the barbaric
hosts of northern Europe; not even Sulla, after his magnificent
conquests in the east, and his triumph over all the parties and factions
which democracy raised against him. Pompey may have contemplated what it
was the fortune of Caesar to secure. But that pompous magnate could have
succeeded only by using the watchwords and practicing the acts to which
none but a demagogue could have stooped. Before his time, at least for
fifty years, there were too many men in the Senate who had the spirit of
Cato, of Cicero, and of Brutus.
[Sidenote: The Revolution.]
[Sidenote: Effects of imperial rule.]
But, _tempora mutantur_. When the Senate was made up of men whom
great generals selected, whether aristocratic sycophants or rich
plebeians; when the tribunes played into the hands of the very men whom
they were created to oppose; when the high priest of a people,
originally religious, was chosen without regard to either moral or
religious considerations, but purely political; when the high offices of
the state were filled by senators who had never seen military life
except for some brief campaign; when factions and parties set old
customs aside; when the most aristocratic nobles sought entrance into
plebeian ranks in order, like Mirabeau, to steal the few offices which
the people controlled, and when the people, mad and fierce from
demoralizing spectacles, raised mobs and subverted law, then the
constitution, under which the Romans had advanced to the conquest of the
world, became subverted. Under the emperors, there was no constitution.
They controlled the Senate, the army, the tribunals of the law, the
distant provinces, the city itself, and regulated taxes and imposed
burdens, and appointed to high offices whomever they wished. The Senate
lost its independence, the courts their justice, the army its spirit,
and the people their hopes. Yet the old form remained. The Senate met as
in the days of the Gracchi. There were consuls and praetors still. But it
was merely equites or rich men who filled the senatorial benches--tools
of the emperor, as were all the officers of the state. The government of
nobles was succeeded by the government of emperors who, in their turn,
were too often the tools of favorites, or of praetorian guards, until the
assassin's dagger cut short their days.
[Sidenote: The rule of emperors a necessity.]
This is not the place to speculate on the good or evil which resulted
from this change in the Roman government. Most historians and
philosophers agree that the change was inevitable, and proved, on the
whole, benignant. It was simply the question whether the Romans should
have civil wars and anarchies and factions, which decimated the people,
and kept society in a state of fear and insecurity, and prevented the
triumph of law, or whether they should submit to an absolute ruler, who
had unbounded means of doing good, and whom interest and duty alike
prompted to secure the public welfare. The people wanted, above all
things, safety, and the means of prosecuting their various interests.
Under the emperors they obtained the greatest boons possible, when the
condition of society was hollow and rotten to the core. The people were
governed, sometimes wisely, sometimes recklessly, but there were order
and law for three hundred years. It little mattered to the vast
population of the empire who was supreme master, provided they were not
oppressed. The proud _Imperator_, the title and praenomen of all the
Roman monarchs, and which had been invented for Octavian, remained the
fountain of law, the arbiter of all interests, the undisputed ruler of
the world. The old offices nominally remained, but, by virtue of the
censorship, the emperor had the power of excluding persons from the
Senate, and of calling others into it. Thus the august body which was,
under the republic, the counterpoise to executive authority, was
rendered dependent on the imperial will. There was no Senate, but in
name, when it could be controlled by the government. It became a mere
form, or an instrument in the hands of the administration, to facilitate
business. By obtaining the proconsular power over the whole of the Roman
Empire, Octavian made the provincial governors his vicegerents. The
_tribunicia potestas_ which he also enjoyed, enabled him to annul
any decree of the Senate, and of interfering in all the acts of the
magistrates. An appeal was open to him, as tribune, from all the courts
of justice; he had a right to convoke the Senate, and to put any subject
under consideration to the vote of senators. Augustus even seized the
pontificate, which office, that of Pontifex Maximus, put into his hands
all the ecclesiastical courts. As tribune and censor, he also controlled
the treasury, so that all the powers of the state were concentrated in
him alone--that of consul, tribune, censor, praetor, and high priest.
What a power to be exercised by one man in so great an empire! The Roman
constitution was subverted when one man usurped the offices which were
formerly shared by many. No sovereign was ever so absolute as the Roman
Imperator, since he combined all the judicial, the executive, and the
legislative branches of the government; that is, he controlled them all.
[Sidenote: The old forms of government preserved.]
Yet the old machinery was kept up, the old forms, the old offices in
name, otherwise even Augustus might not have been secure on his throne.
The Comitia still elected magistrates, but only such as were proposed by
the government. The Senate assembled as usual, but it was composed of
rich men, merely to register the decrees of the Imperator. The consuls
were elected as before, but they were mere shadows in authority. The
only respectable part of the magistracy was that which interpreted the
laws. The only final authority was the edict of the emperor, who not
only controlled all the great offices of state, but was possessed of
enormous and almost unlimited private property. They owned whole
principalities. Augustus changed the whole registration of property in
Gaul on his own responsibility, without consulting any one. [Footnote:
Niebuhr, Lecture 105.] His power was so unlimited that soldiers took the
oath of allegiance to him, as they once did to the _imperium populi
Romani_. His armies, his fleets, and his officers were everywhere,
and no one dreamed of resisting a power which absorbed everything into
itself.
[Sidenote: The imperial power unable to save the state.]
It is altogether another question whether the prosperity of the state
was greater or less after the subversion of the constitution. For three
hundred years the state was probably kept together by the ancient
mechanism controlled by one central will. The change from civil war and
party faction to imperial centralized power, considering the demoralized
condition of society, was doubtless beneficial. The emperor could rule;
he could not, however, conserve the empire. Doubtless, in most cases, he
ruled well, since he ruled by the of great experience and ability. It is
peculiarly the interest of despots to have able men as ministers. They
never select those whom they deem to be weak and corrupt; they are
simply deceived in their estimate of ability and fidelity. For several
generations, the provinces had experienced governors, the armies had
able generals, the courts of law learned judges. The provinces were not
so inexorably robbed as in the time of Cicero. The people had their
pleasures and spectacles and baths. Property was secure, unless enormous
fortunes tempted the cupidity of the emperors. Justice was well
administered. Cities were rebuilt and adorned. Rome owed its greatest
monuments of art to the emperors. There was a cold and remorseless
despotism; but the unnoticed millions toiled in peace. Literature did
not thrive, since that can only live with freedom, but art received
great encouragement, and genius, in the useful professions, did not go
unrewarded. The empire did not fall till luxury and prosperity enervated
the people and rendered them unable to cope with the barbarian hosts.
Rome was never so rich as when she fell into the hands of Goths and
Vandals. But the empire, under the old constitution, might have
protected itself against external enemies. The mortal wound to Roman
power and glory was inflicted by traitors.
* * * * *
AUTHORITIES.--Niebuhr, Lectures on the History of Rome; Mommsen, History
of Rome; Arnold, History of Rome; Merivale, History of the Romans;
Gibbon, Decline and Fall; Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman
Antiquities gives the details, and points out the old classical
authorities, as does Napoleon's Life of Caesar. Dionysius, Polybius,
Livy, Plutarch, Cicero, Sallust, all shed light on important points. See
also Gottling, _Gesch der Rom. Staat_. A large catalogue of writers
could be mentioned, but allusion is only made to those most accessible
to American readers.