ROMAN CIVILIZATION
_The Romans Differed in Nature from the Greeks_.--Instead of being of a
philosophic, speculative nature, the Romans were a practical, even a
stoical, people of great achievement. They turned their ideas always
toward the concrete, and when they desired to use the abstract they
borrowed the principles and theories established by other nations.
They were poor theorizers, both in philosophy and in religion, but were
intensely interested in that which they could turn to immediate and
practical benefit. They were great borrowers of the products of other
people's imagination. In the very early period they borrowed the gods
of the Greeks and somewhat of their forms of religion!
Later they borrowed forms of art from other nations and developed them
to suit their own, and, still later, they used the literary language of
the Greeks to enrich their own. This method of borrowing the best
products of others and putting them to practical service led to immense
consequences in the development of civilization. The Romans lacked not
in originality, for practical application leads to original creation,
but their best efforts in civilization were wrought out from this
practical standpoint. Thus, in the improvement of agriculture, in the
perfection of the art of war, in the development of law and of
government, their work was masterly in the extreme; and to this extent
it was worked out rather than thought out. Indeed, their whole
civilization was evolved from the practical standpoint.
_The Social Structure of Early Rome and That of Early Greece_.--Rome
started, like Greece, with the early patriarchal kings, who ruled over
the expanded family, but with this difference, that these kings, from
the earliest historical records, were {251} elected by the people.
Nevertheless there is no evidence that the democratic spirit was
greater in early Rome than in early Greece, except in form. In the
early period all Italy was filled with tribes, mostly of Aryan descent,
and in the regal period the small territory of Latium was filled with
independent city communities; but all these cities were federated on a
religious basis and met at Alba Longa as a centre, where they conducted
their worship and duly instituted certain regulations concerning the
government of all. Later, after the decline of Alba Longa, the seat of
this federal government was removed to Rome, which was another of the
federated cities. Subsequently this territory was invaded by the
Sabines, who settled at Rome, and, as an independent community, allied
themselves with the Romans.
And, finally, the invasion of the Etruscans gave the last of three
separate communities, which were federated into one state and laid the
foundation of the imperial city. But if some leader founded Rome in
the early period, it is quite natural that he should be called Romulus,
after the name of Rome. Considering the nature of the Romans and the
tendency to the old ancestral worship among them, it does not seem
strange that they should deify this founder and worship him.
Subsequently, we find that this priestly monarchy was changed to a
military monarchy, in which everything was based upon property and
military service. Whatever may be the stories of early Rome, so much
may be mentioned as historical fact.
The foundation was laid in three great tribes, composed of the ancient
families, or patricians, who formed the body of the league. Those who
settled at Rome at an early period became the aristocracy; they were
members of the tribes of immemorial foundation. At first the old
tribal exclusiveness prevailed, and people who came later into Rome
were treated as unequal to those who long had a right to the soil.
This led to a division among the people based on hereditary right,
which lasted in its effect as long as Rome endured. It became the
{252} custom to call those persons belonging to the first families
patricians, and all who were not patricians plebeians, representing
that class who did not belong to the first families. The plebeians
were composed of foreigners, who had only commercial rights, of the
clients who attached themselves to these ancient families, but who
gradually passed into the plebeian rank, and of land-holders,
craftsmen, and laborers. The plebeians were free inhabitants, without
political rights. As there was no great opportunity for the patricians
to increase in number, the plebeians, in the regal period, soon grew to
outnumber them. They were increased by those conquered ones who were
permitted to come to Rome and dwell. Also the tradesmen and immigrants
who dwelt at Rome increased rapidly, for they could have the protection
of the Roman state without having the responsibility of Roman soldiers.
It was of great significance in the development of the Roman government
that these two great classes existed.
_Civil Organization of Rome_.--The organization of the government of
early Rome rested in a peculiar sense upon the family group. The first
tribes that settled in the territory were governed upon a family basis,
and their land was held by family holdings. No other nation appears to
have perpetuated such a power of the family in the affairs of the
state. The father, as the head of the family, had absolute power over
all; the son never became of age so far as the rights of property are
considered as long as the father lived. The father was priest, king,
and legislator for all in the family group. Parental authority was
arbitrary, and when the head of the family passed away the oldest male
member of the family took his place, and ruled as his father had ruled.
A group of these families constituted a clan, and a group of clans made
a tribe, and three tribes, according to the formula for the formation
of Rome, made a state. Whether this formal process was carried out
exactly remains to be proved, but the families related to one another
by ties of blood were united in distinct groups, which were again
reorganized into larger {253} groups, and the formula at the time of
the organization of the state was that there were 30 cantons formed by
300 clans, and these clans averaged about 10 families each. This is
based upon the number of representatives which afterward formed the
senate, and upon the number of soldiers furnished by the various
families. The state became then an enlarged family, with a king at the
head, whose prerogatives were somewhat limited by his position. There
were also a popular assembly, consisting of all the freeholders of the
state, and the senate, formed by the heads of all the most influential
families, for the government of Rome. These ancient hereditary forms
of government extended with various changes in the progress of Rome.
_The Struggle for Liberty_.--The members of the Roman senate were
chosen from the noble families of Rome, and were elected for life,
which made the senate of Rome a perpetual body. Having no legal
declaration of legislative, judicial, executive, or administrative
authority, it was, nevertheless, the most powerful body of its kind
ever in existence. Representing the power of intellect, and having
within its ranks men of the foremost character and ability of the city,
this aristocracy overpowered and ruled the affairs of Rome until the
close of the republic, and afterward became a service to the imperial
government of the Caesars.
From a very early period in the history of the Roman nation the people
struggled for their rights and privileges against this aristocracy of
wealth and hereditary power. At the expulsion of the kings, in 500
B.C., the senate lived on, as did the old popular assembly of the
people, the former gaining strength, the latter becoming weakened.
Realizing what they had lost in political power, having lost their
farms by borrowing money of the rich patricians, and suffered
imprisonment and distress on that account, the plebeians, resolved to
endure no longer, marched out upon the hill, Mons Sacer, and demanded
redress by way of tribunes and other officers.
This was the beginning of an earnest struggle for 50 years {254} for
mere protection, to be followed by a struggle of 150 years for equality
of power and rights. The result of this was that a compromise was made
with the senate, which allowed the people to have tribunes chosen from
the plebeians, and a law was passed giving them the right of protection
against the oppression of any official, and subsequently the right of
intercession against any administrative or judicial act, except in the
case when a dictator was appointed. This gave the plebeians some
representation in the government of Rome. They worked at first for
protection, and also for the privilege of intermarriage among the
patricians. After this they began to struggle for equal rights and
privileges.
A few years after the revolt in 486 B.C. Spurius Cassius brought
forward the first agrarian law. The lands of the original Roman
territory belonged at first to the great families, and were divided and
subdivided among the various family groups. But a large part of the
land obtained by conquest of the Italians became the public domain, the
property of the entire people of Rome. It became necessary for these
lands to be leased by the Roman patricians, and as these same Roman
patricians were members of the senate, they became careless about
collecting rent of themselves, and so the lands were occupied year
after year, and, indeed, century after century, by the Roman families,
who were led to claim them as their own without rental. Cassius
proposed to divide a part of these lands among the needy plebeians and
the Latins as well, and to lease the rest for the profit of the public
treasury. The patricians fought against Cassius because he was to take
away their lands, and the plebeians were discontented with him because
he had favored the Latins. The result was that at the close of his
office he was sentenced and executed for the mere attempt to do justice
to humanity.
The tribunes of the people finally gained more power, and a resolution
was introduced in the senate providing that a body of ten men should be
selected to reduce the laws of the state to a written code. In 451
B.C. the ten men were chosen {255} from the patricians, who formed ten
tables of laws, had them engraved on copper plates, and placed them
where everybody could read them. The following year ten men were again
appointed, three of whom were plebeians, who added two more tables; the
whole body became known as the Laws of the Twelve Tables. It was a
great step in advance when the laws of a community could be thus
published. Soon after this the laws of Valerius and Horatius made the
acts of the assembly of the tribunes of equal force with those of the
assembly of the centuries, and established that every magistrate,
including the dictator, was obliged in the future to allow appeals from
his decision. They also recognized the inviolability of the tribunes
of the people and of the aediles who represented them. But in order to
circumvent the plebeians, two quaestors were appointed in charge of the
military treasury.
Indeed, at every step forward which the people made for equality and
justice, the senate, representing the aristocracy, passed laws to
circumvent the plebeians. In 445 B.C. the tribune Canuleius introduced
a law legalizing marriage between the patricians and plebeians. The
children were to inherit the rank of their father. This tribune
further attempted to pass a law allowing consuls to be chosen from the
plebeians. To this a fierce opposition sprang up, and a compromise
measure was adopted which allowed military tribunes to be elected from
the plebeians, who had consular power. But again the senate sought to
circumvent the plebeians, and created the new patrician office of
censor, to take the census, make lists of citizens and taxes, appoint
senators, prepare the publication of the budget, manage the state
property, farm out the taxes, and superintend public buildings; also he
might supervise the public morality.
With the year 587 B.C. came the invasion of the Gauls from the north
and the famous battle of the Allia, in which the Romans suffered defeat
and were forced to the right bank of the Tiber, leaving the city of
Rome defenseless. Abandoned by the citizens, the city was taken,
plundered, and burned by {256} the Gauls. Senators were slaughtered,
though the capitol was not taken. Finally, surprised and overcome by a
contingent of the Roman army, the enemy was forced to retire and the
inhabitants again returned. But no sooner had they returned than the
peaceful struggle of the plebeians against the patricians began again.
First, there were the poor, indebted plebeians, who sought the reform
of the laws relating to debtor and creditor and desired a share in the
public lands. Second, the whole body of the plebeians were engaged in
an attempt to open the consulate to their ranks. In 367 B.C. the
Licinian laws were passed, which gave relief to the debtors by
deducting the interest already accrued from the principal, and allowing
the rest to be paid in three annual instalments; and a second law
forbade that any one should possess more than 500 jugera of the public
lands. This was to prevent the wealthy patricians from holding lands
in large tracts and keeping them from the plebeians. This law also
abolished the military tribuneship and insisted that one at least of
the two consuls should be chosen from the plebeians--giving a
possibility of two. The patricians, in order to counteract undue
influence in this respect, established the praetorship, the praetor
having jurisdiction and vicegerence of the consuls during their absence.
There also sprang up about this time the new nobility (_optimates_),
composed of the plebeians and patricians who had held office for a long
time, and representing the aristocracy of the community. From this
time on all the Roman citizens tended to go into two classes, the
_optimates_ and, exclusive of these, the great Roman populace. In the
former all the wealth and power were combined; in the latter the
poverty, wretchedness, and dependence. Various other changes in the
constitution succeeded, until the great wars of the Samnites and those
of the Carthaginians directed the attention of the people to foreign
conquest. After the close of these great wars and the firm
establishment of the universal power of Rome abroad, there sprang up a
great civil war, induced largely by the disturbance {257} of the
Gracchi, who sought to carry out the will of the people in regard to
popular democracy and the division of the public lands.
Thus, step by step, the plebeians, by a peaceful civil struggle, had
obtained the consulship, and, indeed, the right to all other civil
offices. They had obtained a right to sit in the senate, had obtained
the declaration of social equality, had settled the great land
question; and yet the will of the people never prevailed. The great
Roman senate, made up of the aristocracy of Rome, an aristocracy of
both plebeians and patricians, ruled with unyielding sway, and the
common people never obtained full possession of their rights and
privileges. Civil strife continued; the gulf between the rich and the
poor, the nobility and the proletariat representing a few rich
political manipulators, on the one side, and the half-fed, half-mad
populace, on the other, grew wider and wider, finally ending in civil
war. In the midst of the strife the republic passed away, and only the
coming of the imperial power of the Caesars perpetuated Roman
institutions.
_Rome Becomes a Dominant City_.--In all of this struggle at home and
abroad, foreign conquest led to the establishment of Rome as the
central city. The constitution of Rome was the typical constitution
for all provincial cities, and from this one centre all provinces were
ruled. No example heretofore had existed of the centralization of
government similar to this. The overlordship of the Persians was only
for the purpose of collecting tribute; there was little attempt to
carry abroad the Persian institutions or to amalgamate the conquered
provinces in one great homogeneous nation.
The empire of Athens was but a temporary hegemony over tributary
states. But the Roman government conquered and absorbed. Wherever
went the Roman arms, there the Roman laws and the Roman government
followed; there followed the Roman language, architecture, art,
institutions, and civilization. Great highways passed from the Eternal
City to all parts of the territory, binding together the separate
elements of {258} national life, and levelling down the barriers
between all nations. Every colony planted by Rome in the new provinces
was a type of the old Roman life, and the provincial government
everywhere became the type of this central city. Here was reached a
state in the development of government which no nation had hitherto
attained--the dominant city and the rule of a mighty empire from
central authority.
_The Development of Government_.--The remarkable development of Rome in
government from the old hereditary nobility, in which priest-kings
ruled the people, to a military king who was leader, subsequently into
a republic which stood the test for several centuries of a fierce
struggle for the rights of the people, finally into an imperial
government to last for 450 years, represents the growth of one of the
most remarkable governments in the world's history. The fundamental
idea in government was the ruling of an entire state from the central
city, and out of this idea grew imperialism as a later development,
vesting all authority in a single monarch. The governments of
conquered provinces were gradually made over into the Roman system.
The Roman municipal government was found in all the cities of the
provinces, and the provincial government became an integral part of the
Roman system. The provinces were under the supervision of imperial
officers appointed by the emperor. Thus the tendency was to bind the
whole government into one unified system, with its power and authority
at Rome. So long as this central authority remained and had its full
sway there was little danger of the decline of Roman power, but when
disintegration began in the central government the whole structure was
doomed.
One of the remarkable characteristics of the Roman government was a
system of checks of one part by every other part. Thus, in the
republic, the consuls were checked by the senate, the senate by the
consular power, the various assemblies, such as the Curiata, Tributa,
and Centuriata, each having its own particular powers, were checks upon
each other and upon other departments of the government. The whole
system of {259} magistrates was subject to the same checks or limits in
authority. And while impeachment was not introduced, each officer, at
the close of his term, was accountable for his actions while in office.
But under imperialism the tendency was to break down the power of each
separate form of government and to absorb it in the imperial power.
Thus Augustus soon attributed to himself the power of the chief
magistrates and obtained a dominating power in the senate until the
functions of government were all centralized in the emperor. While
this made a strong government, in many phases it was open to great
dangers, and in due time it failed, as a result of the corruption that
clustered around the despotism of a single ruler unchecked by
constitutional power.
_The Development of Law Is the Most Remarkable Phase of the Roman
Civilization_.--Perhaps the most lasting effect of the Roman
civilization is observed in the contribution of law to the nations
which arose at the time of the decline of the imperial sway. From the
time of the posting of the Twelve Tables in a public place, where they
could be read by all the citizens of Rome, there was a steady growth of
the Roman law. The decrees of the senate, as well as the influence of
judicial decisions, gradually developed a system of jurisprudence.
There sprang up, also, interpreters of the law, who had much influence
in shaping its course. Also, in the early period of the republic, the
acts of the popular assemblies became laws. This was before the senate
became the supreme lawmaking body of the state.
During the imperial period the emperor acted somewhat through the
senate, but the latter body was more or less under his control, for he
frequently dictated its actions. Having assumed the powers of a
magistrate, he could issue an edict; as a judge he could give decrees
and issue commands to his own officials, all of which tended to
increase the body of Roman law. In the selection of jurists for the
interpretation of the law the emperor also had great control over its
character. The great accomplishment of the lawmaking methods of {260}
the Romans was, in the first place, to allow laws to be made by popular
assemblies and the senate, according to the needs of a developing
social organization. This having once been established, the foundation
of lawmaking was laid for all nations to follow. The Roman law soon
passed into a complex system of jurisprudence which has formed a large
element in the structure, principles, and practice of all modern legal
systems. The character of the law in itself was superior and masterly,
and its universality was accomplished through the universal rule of the
empire.
The later emperors performed a great service to the world by collecting
and codifying Roman laws. The Theodosian code (Theodosius II, 408-450
A.D.) was a very important one on account of the influence it exercised
over the various Teutonic systems of law practised by the different
barbarian tribes that came within the borders of the Roman Empire. The
jurists who gave the law a great development had by the close of the
fourth century placed on record all the principal legal acts of the
empire. They had collected and edited all the sources of law and made
extensive commentaries of great importance upon them, but it remained
for Theodosius to arrange the digests of these jurists and to codify
the later imperial decrees. But the Theodosian code went but a little
way in the process of digesting the laws.
The Justinian code, however, gave a complete codification of the law in
four distinct parts, known as (1) "the Pandects, or digest of the
scientific law literature; (2) the Codex, or summary of imperial
legislation; (3) the Institutes, a general review or text-book, founded
upon the digest and code, an introductory restatement of the law; and
(4) the Novels, or new imperial legislation issued after the
codification, to fill the gaps and cure the inconsistencies discovered
in the course of the work of codification and manifest in its published
results."[1] Thus the whole body of the civil law was incorporated.
Here, then, is seen the progress of the Roman law from the {261}
semireligious rules governing the patricians in the early patriarchal
period, whose practice was generally a form of arbitration, to the
formal writing of the Twelve Tables, the development of the great body
of the law through interpretation, the decrees of magistrates, acts of
legislative assemblies, and finally the codification of the laws under
the later emperors. This accumulation of legal enactments and
precedents formed the basis of legislation under the declining empire
and in the new nationalities. It also occupied an important place in
the curriculum of the university.
_Influence of the Greek Life on Rome_.--The principal influence of the
Greeks on Roman civilization was found first in the early religion and
its development in the Latin race at Rome. The religion of the Romans
was polytheistic, but far different from that of the Greeks. The
deification of nature was not so analytic, and their deities were not
so human as those of the Greek religion. There was no poetry in the
Roman religion; it all had a practical tendency. Their gods were for
use, and, while they were honored and worshipped, they were clothed
with few fancies. The Romans seldom speculated on the origin of the
gods and very little as to their personal character, and failed to
develop an independent theogony. They were behind the Greeks in their
mental effort in this respect, and hence we find all the early religion
was influenced by the ideas of the Latins, the Etruscans, and the
Greeks, the last largely through the colonies which were established in
Italy. Archaeology points conclusively to the fact of early Greek
influence.
In later development the conquest of the Greeks brought to Rome the
religion, art, paintings, and philosophy of the conquered. The Romans
were shrewd and acute in the appreciation of all which they had found
that was good in the Greeks. From the time of this contact there was a
constant and continued adoption of Grecian models in Rome. The first
Roman writers, Fabius Pictor and Quintus Ennius, both wrote in Greek.
All the early Roman writers considered Greek the {262} finished style.
The influence of the Greek language was felt at Rome on the first
acquaintance of the Italians with it, through trade and commerce and
through the introduction of Greek forms of religion.
The early influence of language was less than the influence of art.
While the Phoenicians and Etruscans furnished some of the models, they
were usually unproductive and barren types, and not to be compared with
those furnished by Greece. The young Romans who devoted themselves to
the state and its service were from the fifth century B.C. well versed
in the Greek language. No education was considered complete in the
latter days of the republic, and under the imperial power, until it had
been finished at Athens or Alexandria. The effect on literature,
particularly poetry and the drama, was great in the first period of
Roman literature, and even Horace, the most original of all Latin
poets, began his career by writing Greek verse, and no doubt his
beautiful style was acquired by his ardent study of the Greek language.
The plays of Plautus and Terence deal also with the products of Athens,
and, indeed, every Roman comedy was to a certain extent a copy, either
in form or spirit, of the Greek. In tragedy, the spirit of Euripides,
the master, came into Rome.
The influence of the Greek philosophy was more marked than that of
language. Its first contact with Rome was antagonistic. The
philosophers and rhetoricians, because of the disturbance they created,
were expelled from Rome in the second century. As early as 161 A.D.
those who pursued the study of philosophy always read and disputed in
Greek. Many Greek schools of philosophy of an elementary nature were
established temporarily at Rome, while the large number of students of
philosophy went to Athens, and those of rhetoric to Rhodes, for the
completion of their education. The philosophy of Greece that came into
Rome was something of a degenerate Epicureanism, fragments of a
broken-down system, which created an unwholesome atmosphere.
The only science which Rome developed was that of {263} jurisprudence,
and the scientific writings of the Greeks had comparatively little
influence upon Roman culture. Mr. Duruy, in speaking of the influence
of the Greeks on Rome, particularly in the days of its decline, says:
"In conclusion, we find in certain sciences, for which Rome cared
nothing, great splendor, but in art and poetry no mighty inspiration;
in eloquence, vain chatter of words and images (the rhetoricians),
habits but no faith; in philosophy, the materialism which came from the
school of Aristotle, the doubt born of Plato, the atheism of Theodorus,
the sensualism of Epicurus vainly combated by the moral protests of
Zeno; and lastly, in the public life, the enfeeblement or the total
loss of all of those virtues which make the man and the citizen; such
were the Greeks at the time. And now we say, with Cato, Polybius,
Livy, Pliny, Justinian, and Plutarch, that all this passed into the
Eternal City. The conquest of Greece by Rome was followed by the
conquest of Rome by Greece. _Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit_."
_Latin Literature and Language_.--The importance of the Latin language
and literature in the later history of the Romans and throughout the
Middle Ages is a matter of common knowledge. The language of the Latin
tribes congregating at Rome finally predominated over all Italy and
followed the Roman arms through all the provinces. It became to a
great extent the language of the common people and subsequently the
literary language of the empire. It became finally the great vehicle
of thought in all civil and ecclesiastical proceedings in the Middle
Ages and at the beginning of the modern era. As such it has performed
a great service to the world. Cato wrote in Latin, and so did the
annalists of the early period of Latin literature. Livy became a
master of his own language, and Cicero presents the improved and
elevated speech. The study of these masterpieces, full of thought and
beauty of expression, has had a mighty influence in the education of
the youth of modern times. It must be conceded, however, that in Rome
the productions of the great masters were not as universally {264}
known or as widely celebrated as one would suppose. But, like all
great works of art, they have lived on to bear their influence through
succeeding ages.
_Development of Roman Art_.--The elements of art and architecture were
largely borrowed from the Greeks. We find, however, a distinctive
style of architecture called Roman, which varies from that of the
Greek, although the influence of Greek form is seen not only in the
decorations but in the massive structure of the buildings. Without
doubt, in architecture the Romans perfected the arch as their chief
characteristic and contribution to art progress. But this in itself
was a great step in advance and laid the foundation of a new style. As
might be expected from the Romans, it became a great economic advantage
in building. In artistic decoration they made but little advancement
until the time of the Greek influence.
_Decline of the Roman Empire_.--The evolution of the Roman nation from
a few federated tribes with archaic forms of government to a fully
developed republic with a complex system of government, and the passage
of the republic into an imperialism, magnificent and powerful in its
sway, are subjects worthy of our most profound contemplation; and the
gradual decline and decay of this great superstructure is a subject of
great interest and wonder. In the contemplation of the progress of
human civilization, it is indeed a mournful subject. It seems to be
the common lot of man to build and destroy in order to build again.
But the Roman government declined on account of causes which were
apparent to every one. It was an impossibility to build up such a
great system without its accompanying evils, and it was impossible for
such a system to remain when such glaring evils were allowed to
continue.
If it should be asked what caused the decline of this great
civilization, it may be said that the causes were many. In the first
place, the laws of labor were despised and capital was consumed without
any adequate return. There was consequently nothing left of an
economic nature to withstand the rude {265} shocks of pestilence and
war. The few home industries, when Rome ceased to obtain support from
the plunder of war, were not sufficient to supply the needs of a great
nation. The industrial condition of Rome had become deplorable. In
all the large cities there were a few wealthy and luxurious families, a
small number of foreigners and freedmen who were superintending a large
number of slaves, and a large number of free citizens who were too
proud to work and yet willing to be fed by the government. The
industrial conditions of the rural districts and small cities were no
better.
There were a few non-residents who cultivated the soil by means of
slaves, or by _coloni_, or serfs who were bound to the soil. These
classes were recruited from the conquered provinces. Farming had
fallen into disrepute. The small farmers, through the introduction of
slavery, were crowded from their holdings and were compelled to join
the great unfed populace of the city. Taxation fell heavily and
unjustly upon the people. The method of raising taxes by farming them
out was a pernicious system that led to gross abuse. All enterprise
and all investments were discouraged. There was no inducement for men
to enter business, as labor had been dishonored and industry crippled.
The great body of Roman people were divided into two classes, those who
formed the lower classes of laborers and those who had concentrated the
wealth of the country in their own hands and held the power of the
nation in their own control. The mainstay of the nation had fallen
with the disappearance of the sterling middle class. The lower classes
were reduced to a mob by the unjust and unsympathetic treatment
received at the hands of the governing class.
In the civil administration there was a division of citizens into two
classes: those who had influence in the local affairs of their towns or
neighborhood, and those who were simply interested in the central
organization. During the days of the republic these people were
closely related, because all citizens were forced to come to Rome in
order to have a voice in the political interests of the government.
But during the empire {266} there came about a change, and the citizens
of a distant province were interested only in the management of their
own local affairs and lost their interest in the general government, so
that when the central government weakened there was a tendency for the
local interests to destroy the central.
After the close of Constantine's reign very great evils threatened the
Roman administration. First of these was the barbarians; second, the
populace; and third, the soldiers. The barbarians continually made
inroads upon the territory, broke down the governmental system, and
established their own, not so much for the sake of destruction and
plunder, as is usually supposed, but to seek the betterment of their
condition as immigrants into a new territory. That they were in some
instances detrimental to the Roman institutions is true, but in others
they gave new life to the declining empire. The populace was a rude,
clamorous mass of people, seeking to satisfy their hunger in the
easiest possible way. These were fed by the politicians for the sake
of their influence. The soldiery of Rome had changed. Formerly made
up of patriots who marched out to defend their own country or to
conquer surrounding provinces in the name of the Eternal City, the
ranks were filled with mercenary soldiers taken from the barbarians,
who had little interest in the perpetuation of the Roman institutions.
They had finally obtained so much power that they set up an emperor, or
dethroned him, at their will.
And finally it may be said that of all these internal maladies and
external dangers, the decline in moral worth of the Roman nation is the
most appalling. Influenced by a broken-down philosophy, degenerated in
morals, corrupt in family and social life, the whole system decayed,
and could not withstand the shock of external influence.
_Summary of Roman Civilization_.--The Roman contribution, then, to
civilization is largely embraced in the development of a system of
government with forms and functions which have been perpetuated to this
day; the development of a system of law which has found its place in
all modern legal {267} codes; a beautiful and rich language and
literature; a few elements of art and architecture; the development of
agriculture on a systematic basis; the tendency to unify separate races
in one national life; the practice of the art of war on a humane basis,
and the development of the municipal system of government which has had
its influence on every town of modern life. These are among the chief
contributions of the Roman system to the progress of humanity.
While it is common to talk of the fall of the Roman Empire, Rome is
greater to-day in the perpetuity of her institutions than during the
glorious days of the republic or of the magnificent rule of the
Caesars. Rome also left a questionable inheritance to the posterity of
nations. The idea of imperialism revived in the empire of Charlemagne,
and later in the Holy Roman Empire, and, cropping out again and again
in the monarchies of new nations, has not become extinct to this day.
The recent World War gave a great shock to the idea of czarism. The
imperial crowns of the Hohenzollerns, the Hapsburgs, the Romanoffs, and
the royal crowns of minor nations fell from the heads of great rulers,
because the Emperor of Germany overworked the idea of czarism after the
type of imperial Rome. But the idea is not dead. In shattered Europe,
the authority and infallibility of the state divorced from the
participation of the people, though put in question, is yet a
smouldering power to be reckoned with. It is difficult to erase Rome's
impress upon the world.
SUBJECTS FOR FURTHER STUDY
1. How were the Greeks and Romans related racially?
2. Difference between the Greek and the Roman attitude toward life.
3. What were the land reforms of the Gracchi?
4. What advancement did the Romans make in architecture?
5. What were the internal causes of the decline of Rome?
6. Why did the Celts and the Germans invade Rome?
7. Enumerate the permanent contributions of Rome to subsequent
civilization.
[1] Hadley, _Introduction to Roman Law_.
{268}