CHAPTER XXV

ROME AFTER THE CONQUEST OF SICILY

I.

SICILY: TAXATION

AFTER his brilliant victory at the Aegates islands in 241 and the successful negotiations with Hamilcar, Lutatius Catulus remained in Sicily for some months as proconsul, and with the aid of his brother, who was consul that year, took possession of the towns that still had Punic garrisons, disarmed the natives and established a Roman government. It had been agreed at Rome that the Sicilians were to be autonomous in their local governments but that, except where definite privileges had been granted them, they were to pay a tax of a tenth of their produce to the state. For the supervision of tax-collecting a quaestor was stationed at Lilybaeum. But obviously where subjects are to be taxed, there must also be some governing official and an adequate police force. Whether the appropriate executive powers were at first bestowed upon the quaestor or whether some consular legate was sent to the province in the early days we do not know. It was not till fourteen years later that a definitive form of provincial government under a resident praetor was established.

The immediate tasks of importance were to find a practical system of tax-collecting, to classify the cities of Sicily with reference to their obligations, and to establish suitable governments in towns like Lilybaeum, Drepana, and Agrigentum that had been taken from Carthage. It was no small task to collect, verify, and codify the treaties and promises of immunity, alliance or friendship that had from time to time been given to various cities by Roman consuls in return for adhesion to the Roman cause.

Details regarding the original classification are lacking, but we may make reasonable deductions from the data that we have for the period after Syracuse and her several subject cities were included in the province, that is after the Second Punic War. From the tithe-paying portion of Sicily we have first to exempt the kingdom of Hiero, or about one-fourth of the island. Since 248 Hiero had had a treaty of alliance like those of Italian allies, the only difference being that he was under no formal obligation to provide a specific contingent of men in case of war. Messana was also an ally, subject, like Rhegium, to the upkeep of one war vessel. We may add that after the fall of Syracuse two of Hiero’s cities, Tauromenium and Neetum, were added to this class, although Syracuse herself then fell to the rank of a tithe-paying city. We must also place in a separate class five fortunate cities which were free and immune from obligations. This immunity, which had been promised by Roman consuls, continued to be respected by Rome though not confirmed by treaties. Four of these cities, Halaesa, Centuripa, Segesta and Halicyae, had secured their favourable status during the first two years of the war, since they adhered to the Roman cause at a time when the senate had not yet conceived of the idea of mastering Sicily. This immunity, however, was to be a personal privilege of the citizens of the respective towns and be recognized only within the territories concerned. If any other Sicilian or even a Roman should rent land within a free district, he became subject to the tithe. We have in fact the name of a Roman senator in Cicero’s day who paid a tax on his lease at Segesta while the natives were immune. The purpose of this restriction is obvious: special privileges were meant only for those, and the descendants of those, who had risked their lives by joining Rome’s cause at a very perilous time. The fifth city of the list, Panormus, was taken by storm twelve years after the others had become ‘ friends ’ of Rome, and we are not informed why it secured favourable conditions; but we may perhaps suppose that a pro-Roman party within had aided in the speedy capture and that the city was afterwards placed in their hands, and assigned to the privileged class as a reward.

These two classes of allied and immune cities constituted about one-half of the island in the early days of the province, and since Rome seems not to have confiscated any public land here until 212, the other half was apparently subjected to the payment of tithes. This of course applied to harvested crops, and since they could not readily be collected upon pasture land, the tax there took the form of an equivalent in money (scriptura) payable annually on each head of grazing stock. The principle of the single tax on land was quite reasonable, since Sicily was largely an agricultural country, and as the export of a tenth of the crop to Rome increased the value of the rest, the burden of the tax may be considered to have distributed itself fairly equably over the non-rural population as well. There was in addition the usual harbour tax levied on all exports and imports at the ports under Roman supervision, and the collection of this was farmed out to contractors at Rome. It was placed at five per cent, and served for revenue only.

The collection of the tithe from subjects was of course a complete innovation for Rome. If carried out directly it would require a vast civil service: if farmed out by contracts let at Rome, as were the port dues, it might lead to endless bickerings, and it is doubtful whether at this time companies had been organized at Rome with sufficient capital to perform the work. Rome wisely adopted outright the plan which Hiero had elaborated in the minutest details in his portion of the island, a plan which had advantages over Punic methods in that it was trusted by the natives because it provided safeguards against peculation and was set out in a language which both Roman officials and the natives comprehended. According to this plan it was the duty of the city magistrates every year to take a census of all the farmers of the district (that is, the actual farmers, whether renters or owners), recording both the complete acreage (professio jugerum) and the acreage of each crop actually under cultivation, with the amount of seed-corn used (professio sationum). These records were signed under oath and penalty and were made with extreme care, so that the contractor who wished to bid for the year’s collection of any city could, after consulting the records and estimating the condition of the growing crops, form a fair calculation of how much he dare offer. He could then with reasonable safety go before the Roman quaestor on the day of the auction of contracts and make his bid. His offer was on the basis of 10’2/5 per cent of the crop in kind, the fraction to serve as his wage. The contract was let to the highest bidder, native or Roman, provided his financial responsibility was approved. The cities were encouraged to make bids for their own contracts so as to protect the general interest as well as to save the wage, and they frequently availed themselves of this right. There is no instance on record of a tithe contract let in Sicily to any agent of a Roman societas. Perhaps the law was so drawn as to exclude these firms, but it is more probable that since the contracts were let in small lots the profits were not sufficiently tempting. The contractor who had won a bid was required to reach an agreement with each farmer before a certain day as to the amount of the tithe, and if the two failed to agree on the estimate, the settlement must be made at the threshing-floor where disputes could be decided by an actual measurement of the grain. To safeguard the farmer, who might be an ignorant peasant, the precise form of the agreement was prescribed. The farmer signed a promise to deliver the amount found due, the contractor signed a statement that he accepted that amount as satisfying his claim, and both signed receipts for the documents they exchanged. Finally, the contractor deposited copies of all the documents with the city magistrate, who was then bound to see that the farmers of his district delivered the amount due.

This is not all, but it is sufficient to show that the Lex Hieronica was explicit enough to satisfy even Sicilian Greeks that no frauds were to be perpetrated against them. It also shows that Hiero was a ruler who deserved the high esteem in which his subjects held him. For despite many attempts to find the source of this law in the Ptolemaic revenue codes, the credit still seems to belong to Hiero. It is true that Ptolemy’s code seems to be the earlier one, also that Hiero had close commercial relations with Alexandria and probably knew of the Ptolemaic code, but the similarities between the two consist only in the obvious terms that must necessarily recur in all taxation laws, while the basic principles and the underlying spirit differ completely.

That Rome adopted Hiero’s method rather than Punic ones was fortunate for the Sicilians, if we may judge from the reputation which Carthage had in Africa, and it speaks well also for the intentions of the first Roman commission which had the task of organizing Sicily. Certain it is that Sicily fared far better than did Asia a century later under a looser plan devised by the Gracchi. The time came—in the late Republic—when Sicily was also cruelly exploited, but the thieving of Verres, from which even Rome suffered, was not due to the financial devices of the Lex Hieronica but must be attributed directly to the Roman praetor who abused his magisterial authority.

The burden of the tax was not considered a heavy one, for a seventh or a fifth was not unusual in ancient taxing, and there were Roman investors who found it possible to rent lands in Sicily and make a profit after paying both rent and tax. Certainly the tithe had been exacted over a large part of Sicily for nearly two centuries. In a country often hurt by droughts, payment in kind had the advantage over a fixed money payment in that the tax rose and fell with the crop. It also saved the Sicilian from the necessity of hurrying a part of his crop to the market at the time of lowest price; and finally this part, instead of being thrown upon his market, was removed to Rome so that the rest proportionately increased in value. This latter fact was so well recognized by the Romans that when in the next century they from time to time bought a second and third tenth of the Sicilian crop, they reckoned their new purchases at a higher price.

The amount collected annually in the early days of the province we do not know, but in Cicero’s day, when several cities of Hiero’s kingdom had been added to the decuman group, the tithe amounted to about 7 50,000 bushels annually, or three million modii. A low price was at that time about two shillings the bushel (three sesterces per modius). If the crop was so good in the third century, we may assume that the annual tithe on the smaller area then Roman would have been about half a million bushels and the tax burden on the arable land of Sicily would have amounted to about £50,000—not a large amount for a population of about a million souls. It is difficult to comprehend why the Roman farmers did not object to having this amount of grain thrown upon their only market every year. Had there been serious objection they would probably have demanded that the Sicilians should pay their tribute in cash, as the Romans were compelled to do. The only reasonable explanation for the silence of the Roman farmers is that in the vicinity of the city cereal culture had already begun to give way to olive and vine culture and to pasturing, so that Rome could absorb the Sicilian supply and sell whatever surplus remained after provisioning her army without glutting the market.

It would be interesting to know what the Senate considered the legal status of its tithe-paying subjects in Sicily. In Hadrian’s day the jurists spoke of the provincial soil as actually owned by Rome and of the tithe-payers as renters of Rome’s land. That theory of sovereignty we find extensively held particularly by the Ptolemaic and Seleucid kings of the third century, but even they hesitated to apply it to autonomous Greek cities, and it is difficult to believe that Hiero had adopted the doctrine in Sicily since his subjects were Greeks and he made no claim to theocratic autocracy. It is not probable that Rome proclaimed ownership in the soil at the time of taking possession. We may even doubt whether Rome was then aware of such a theory, for hitherto Rome had never claimed ownership over conquered territory except the definite plots which were actually declared ager publicus. Without attempting to comprehend the abstract principles, the Senate, bent on practical results, left all the native Sicilians in undisturbed possession, recognized the deeds and leases then in force and simply took over the annual revenues that the former sovereign had collected. It may be that certain Carthaginian official residences in Lilybaeum and Panormus fell to the Romans in full possession, but, except for such minor properties, Rome seems not to have acquired any ager publicus until 212, when Hiero’s royal domains at Leontini and some confiscated estates at Syracuse raised the question of public ownership. In later years the succession to Punic national mines in Spain and to royal estates, forests, and mines in Macedonia and Asia called for legal interpretation, and finally some jurist read into Roman law the Oriental theory of sovereignty. However, we are not yet able to say when that occurred, and it was probably long after the formation of the first province, indeed probably after Augustus.

II.

SICILY: ADMINISTRATION

With the local governments of the several cities Rome did not interfere, but an official with large executive powers was needed to assume the responsibility for peace and order in such newly conquered land. In 227 the assembly at Rome began to elect four praetors annually in order to employ one in Sicily and one in Sardinia, and from that time on, the praetorial government continued until the custom was adopted of employing a propraetor. Roman praetors were in theory colleagues of the consuls and, as such, had frequently commanded armies. They had also supervised the finances of their military quaestors and had had charge of the courts of justice at Rome. This office therefore combined the functions that were particularly called for in Sicily. During the term of his office a praetor exercised in theory almost royal authority; but his power was restricted to that his term was short, and he was aware that he could be impeached for maladministration at its expiration. Furthermore, Sicily now had peace, so that there was for a long time no occasion for the exercise of military authority except to look after the legion stationed there; and since the city governments were autonomous and possessed their own courts, the praetor’s judicial duties were limited to cases in which one or both litigants were Roman citizens. And even in such cases his powers were later circumscribed by the fact that the jury panel which he appointed must consist of fellow-citizens of the defendant, whether Sicilian or Roman.

On the whole, Rome apparently endeavoured to choose the more liberal practices in vogue at home and in Sicily for the political and financial administration of her new subjects. Time proved, however, that the Roman theory of strong magistrates was a dangerous one to follow in the government of subjects so far away from tribunician supervision. When this fact was discovered, the Roman assembly tried to remedy the defect not by limiting the governor’s powers, but by setting up a special court in which provincials might air their grievances. However, it was an expensive undertaking for poor subjects to carry their cases to Rome, and hence, though we know of several instances of maladministration, we are not surprised to hear that no governor was publicly accused by the Sicilians before Verres, and against him charges were not brought till his plunder reached the skies.

As we have noted, the cities continued to rule themselves, and to issue coins as before; in fact, a dozen cities which had not coined in the past now began to issue their own money. They doubtless felt a certain local pride in acquiring an equal status with their former superiors and a sense of security in the firm peace. No more would the devastating armies of Carthage and of the Syracusan kings, which had fought backwards and forwards across the island for two centuries, raze their city walls. The local governments were usually of the democratic type, and the Romans were at this time so thoroughly committed to the theory of popular sovereignty that they could hardly have wished to change them. It is only later, when Rome herself became more of an aristocracy, that envoys who were asked to rewrite the charters of Halaesa, Agrigentum, and Heraclea reveal a tendency to advocate aristocratic forms. In general the primary assembly ruled the town, and the boule was in many places a closed corporation with little power except to confer dignity upon its members. To be sure, the pax Romana removed questions of large moment, so that the primary assembly also lost its importance, and then the boule somewhat increased its activity, since the sovereign power in its perfunctory dealings with the cities preferred to confer with the smaller and more respectable body. But of direct interference in the form of the governments in Sicily we do not hear. Finally, despite restrictions upon the right of land-holding in Segesta, we hear of no case in which Rome circumscribed the natural rights of the Sicilians or attempted in any way to break up their community of interests. To the Segestans, their long-lost cousins, the Romans accorded special treatment. Segesta not only became ‘immune’ but also was granted a large accretion of territory including the possession of Mt Eryx with its important temple. When the Senate decided that foreigners, whether Sicilians or Romans, should not have the privilege of buying land there, and that they must pay tithes when they rented within the boundaries of Segesta, the purpose was to safeguard the land and the privileges for the Segestans.

Roman rule in Sicily, however, was not drawn on the lines of an eleemosynary institution. Rome did not pretend to govern subjects for charity. On the other hand her rule was beneficent, at least until the time when her own government at home became a disgrace. Even the war, long as it had been, had brought little suffering to the Sicilians except at the far western end of the island. Peace of course put an end to the oppressive tyrannies and the odious exactions of Carthage. The tax-gathering that followed was meticulously managed for more than a century, and the praetors of that period were of Rome’s best. So carefully were they limited by law in their behaviour that they could not so much as buy a slave in Sicily except to fill a vacancy in their staff of servants. Sicily prospered materially. The servile war of the next century, while an indication of slackness on the part of some governor, is proof also of the fact that a large number of farmers had grown very wealthy and possessed great estates, and these owners were natives. No Roman or Latin colony was planted in Sicily before Augustus’ day, and relatively few Romans possessed land there before the time of Verres. Unfortunately the overencouragement of cereal culture by ordering at a fair market price a second and often a third tenth of the produce for the supply of the Roman dole resulted in an over-production of wheat year after year which finally exhausted the chemicals in the soil which are required by cereals; and by the time of Augustus Sicily was compelled to give her land a long rest.

III.

ITALY AND ROME

In the Italian federations which had been so heavily burdened with levies during the last twenty-four years, Rome now had to make various readjustments. For some crime committed against Rome’s tribunes, the city of Falerii, perched with apparent security upon the high cliffs of the Treia, was swiftly punished. Both of the consuls of 241 marched upon the town with the full forces that had just come back from Sicily, and in a campaign of six days took the city, disarmed the natives and ordered them to leave their homes and to rebuild them on the plains three miles away from their stronghold. A half of their territory was confiscated. Since Rome’s alliance with Falerii dated from 293 it is probable that at its expiration in 243 the Faliscans had refused to renew it in order to escape the yearly conscription. When one considers how extensive the federation was, how recently it had been formed, and how costly in men the association with Rome had recently proved, it is amazing that Falerii was the only allied city that rebelled against Rome’s orders. On the new site the Faliscans were permitted to build an enclosing wall which, constructed largely upon level ground, would not be likely to withstand Rome’s engines in case of i second revolt, but would serve to protect the town against Gallic incursions. A large part of this wall is still standing. The temple of Juno was left intact, but the divinities of the other two temples were evoked and given temples at Rome.

Among the administrative measures of this year we must record the planting of a Latin colony at Spoletium. This city lay in lower Umbria behind Falerii and on the road that led to Ariminum, Rome’s frontier post on the edge of the Gallic territory. The colony was doubtless to serve important military purposes.

During the same year, in payment for their loyal services during the war Rome gave the Sabines and Picentes two wards in the centuriate assembly, i.e. the tribes Quirina and Velina. Their ballots would now have full value in this assembly, whereas hitherto their voters, coming in small numbers from distant homes, had been lost in the larger groups. With the addition of these two wards Rome now had thirty-five in all, and that number was never increased.

A far more important change was the reform of the centuriate assembly. This happens not to be dated, but it is generally assumed that the censors of 241 who added the two tribes also brought about this reform. Hitherto the wealthiest men, consisting of the eighteen centuries of knights and eighty centuries of the first class, had had a majority of the votes, since the other four classes had had only 20, 20, 20 and 30 votes respectively . In the new plan the knights retained their eighteen votes, and it is probable that the five votes of the artisans and proletariat were also retained, but the five classes were somehow equalized. Furthermore, the voting groups within each class were divided by tribes so that the territorial principle received some recognition. Hereafter, for instance, the relatively small group of first-class voters that came from the Velina tribe on the Adriatic had as much importance as the larger group of first-class voters belonging to the Poplilian tribe near Rome. The procedure of the elections is not clear, for the loss of the second decade of Livy leaves us with only meagre information about internal matters, but it is generally supposed that each of the five classes was divided by tribes into thirty-five groups and that each of these groups again fell into two groups of ‘juniors’ and ‘seniors’ as before, thus making 5 x 70 + 18 (knights) + 5 = 373 voting groups. At the elections one group out of the first class was chosen by lot to cast the first ballot. Thereafter the knights and the five classes voted in order until a majority of the 373 votes had beep reached, when voting was discontinued. Property still counted for something, since the propertyless—a class which increases in number with the growth of cities—were given but one vote. In what other ways the principle of timocracy was recognized we cannot say, since we do not know what the property qualifications of each class were. Presumably they did not remain as before, since in the old system the property-rating was adapted to a very primitive economy and there were now many wealthy landowners. At any rate, our sources assume that the change was in the nature of a democratic reform. One conservative principle, however, was preserved, since the ‘seniors’, men over forty-five—who would naturally be a minority—had as many votes as the ‘juniors’. The new plan, therefore, like its predecessor, shows respect for age and property, but it no longer gives control of the assembly to men of wealth.

Had this reform been brought about by a democratic contest within the assembly, as were most of the liberalizing changes in the constitution, we should probably have some record of the battle in our sources. Since we have none—the epitome of Livy’s Book Twenty does not record it—we may assume that it was a censorial measure carried out by virtue of the censors’ power to enrol voters where they saw fit. It is probable therefore that the censors re-organized the centuriate assembly in order to make it more popular and thus, if possible, invite favour away from the radical tribal assembly. Obviously the centuriate assembly, presided over by consuls, would even now be a safer body in which to introduce bills than the plebeian body presided over by young tribunes. If this was the purpose of the reform it must be admitted that the measure was not a great success. The important legislation of the following period is found in plebiscites. However it is not unlikely that the tribunes might some day have transferred the election of consuls, praetors and censors to the tribal assembly had not the centuriate body been re-organized. The fact that the important magistrates continued to be elected in the more conservative body is doubtless due to this revision.

IV.

CARTHAGE AFTER THE WAR

After the close of the Punic war relations between the governments of Rome and Carthage were very friendly. Carthage was then in a death struggle with her rebelling mercenaries, whereas Rome could well afford to be generous after her victory. But this  is not the whole explanation. Of greater importance is the fact that Carthage, having repudiated the leadership of the Barcid war faction, had now accepted the policy of Hanno, who advocated the acquisition of a land empire in Africa rather than the maritime commercial exploitation which had incurred the hostility of the Greeks and Romans. It would seem that Hanno represented the landed nobility rather than the commercial classes, and that he favoured friendship with Rome. Carthage not only deserted Hamilcar but decided to disregard the promises of bounties which Hamilcar had made to his troops at critical moments of the war. The mercenaries rebelled, of course; and in addition the Numidians and Libyans, who feared the imperialism of the party now in power, gave them strong support. The ‘Truceless War’ that resulted is described in all its horror by Polybius. The Roman Senate, with nothing to fear from its weakened enemy, desiring in fact to see a friendly faction in the ascendancy in Africa, did much to aid the threatened state. Being warned that Italians were selling food and arms to the rebels, the Senate, after securing the release of the offending traders who had been caught, forbade further commerce with them, while sending grain to the hard-pressed city of Carthage; then bought up at public expense the Punic captives that were to be found in Italy, gave them back as a gift, and, annulling for the time a clause of the recent treaty, permitted Carthage to hire troops in Italy. Presently when the Punic mercenaries stationed in Sardinia revolted from Carthage, slew their officers, and in fear of the natives asked Rome to take possession of the island, Rome refused. Again when Utica, deserting Carthage, joined the African revolt and offered to accept Rome as sovereign, Rome remained loyal to the recent treaty and refused. Had Hamilcar then been the controlling statesman in Carthage, there is little doubt that Rome would have behaved differently.

Hanno however mismanaged the war to such an extent that in its second year Hamilcar was again given a command over a part of the Punic forces, and in the third year a temporary reconciliation was brought about between the two generals with Hamilcar the dominant force. From this time on Carthage began to make steady progress against the rebellion. But meanwhile the Senate began to veer away from its generous course. In 239 BC Carthage felt strong enough to send a force to Sardinia in an effort to recover that island, but the troops revolted, killed the general in command and joined the mutineers. The next year, however, the rebellious troops were attacked in force by the natives and now for a second time asked Rome to take possession of the island. This time the Senate, ‘contrary to all justice,’ as Polybius well says, decided to accept the invitation. The Senate could perhaps advance the pretext that since Carthage had lost the island two years before and had failed to recover it the following year, Rome was not violating the treaty that forbade attacks upon or alliance with Punic subjects. Indeed Rome had such manifest interests in the possession of this island, which lay outstretched so near the Italian coast, that this interpretation has been condoned by several modern historians. However, it is apparent that the diplomatic usage of the day did not excuse the act. Polybius, well-versed in international custom, did not spare words in condemning it, and the Romans later, feeling that excuses were demanded, busied themselves in manufacturing explanations. They weakly alleged, for instance, that Sardinia was one of the islands lying between Sicily and Italy surrendered by the treaty of 241. They also stated that Carthage had first broken a treaty by capturing Italians who carried contraband to Africa—a dispute which had already been amicably settled. It is interesting to note that the diplomatic discussion of that day seems to have been silent both about the length of time that Carthage might reasonably have been allowed in order to win back her lost island, and about the position of Sardinia with regard to Rome’s sphere of interest and of safety.

Rome fitted out an expedition to take possession; Carthage served notice that she had not abandoned the island, and began to man her fleet to anticipate her rival. Rome, hearing of the preparations and claiming that they were directed against her, declared war. Carthage offered to arbitrate but Rome refused. Carthage, completely worn out, could only ask for terms of peace, and for these she paid the indemnity imposed of 1200 talents and surrendered all claim to Sardinia. With Sardinia went Corsica as well, though the latter island was not mentioned in the treaty. Apparently Carthage had made no effort to recover that island since Scipio took its principal harbour, Aleria, twenty years before, and saw no point in raising the question of sovereignty now. By any standard Rome’s last act of declaring war left no room for excuses and did much to raise up a lasting enmity in Carthage; and this enmity strengthened Hamilcar’s party, destroying the influence of the faction which preferred peace with Rome and confined its ambitions to Africa.

During the next six years, according to the later annals, there were many battles and skirmishes in Sardinia and Corsica. The ancient barbarians inhabiting these islands, descendants of the warlike builders of the picturesque nuraghi had on the whole been left to their own devices by the Carthaginians, who had been satisfied to hold possession of the port towns and barter with the natives. The Romans, however, had a different conception of what overlordship could mean. Trade and barter did not interest them, and nominal sovereignty over barbaric tribes without explicit and formal treaties was a thing quite incomprehensible to them. Furthermore, Rome had now learned in Sicily that possession might mean a lucrative tribute to the sovereign. So the Roman governor sent his envoys to the various tribes with treaties of submission which he asked them to sign. When the signatures were not forthcoming, he advanced with his troops and compelled submission, sometimes at a heavy cost to his army. In 235 Manlius, in 234 Carvilius, in 233 Pomponius, all Roman consuls, triumphed over Sardinian tribes, and in 231 the consul Papirius triumphed over the Corsi—so seriously did the Senate take the task of subjugating a harmless people who did not even comprehend why the Romans were there. In 227 the two islands were made into a province like Sicily and a fourth praetor allotted annually to take charge. Tithes were henceforth collected here as in Sicily, and from all the tribes, for none had gained immunity through friendly act or speedy submission.

V.

NORTH ITALY: FLAMINIUS

About the time that the Senate decided to take Sardinia, skirmishes with the Ligurians beyond the Arno are first reported. These mountaineers were then a large nation extending from the Alps of Upper Savoy, through the Apennines as far as Arretium, holding therefore the whole of the Italian coast beyond the Arno. The Etruscans, now members of Rome’s federation, had long before seized the Arno valley and taken possession of Pisa and the arable region beyond up to the Apennine foothills, but during the third century, when the Etruscans were too weak to protect their boundaries and the Romans were too busily engaged to lend them support, the Ligurians had come back as far as the river. Greek writers of the third century speak of Pisa and the Arno as Ligurian. We have no information regarding the causes of Roman operations there, but we may suppose that the Senate had determined to bring back the Arno and at least Pisa within the territory of the federation. At any rate we find a few years later that Pisa is a friendly Etruscan port and is being used by Roman generals as a point of departure for Corsica. It is not unlikely that the Senate also planned to carry the line some thirty miles farther back so as to secure a natural boundary in the Apennines, for in 236 the consul Lentulus is said to have stormed some forts in the mountains. But this may simply have been a demonstration of strength. At any rate no serious effort to gain the foothills was made till after the Hannibalic War, when the acquisition of Spain proved the need of possessing a safe road along the Ligurian coast toward the new province.

In the city the democratic ferment which had made possible the reform of the centuries was still at work. That reform is perhaps to be credited with the elevation of a new group of plebeians to the consulship, for instance the two Pomponii (in 233, 231), Poplicius Malleolus (232), Apustius (226), and in bringing back to prominence the families of Papirius (231) and Aemilius Lepidus (232), for a long time in obscurity. About this time the censors (probably Atilius and Postumius in 234), in response to the democratic dislike of freedmen, significantly enrolled all freedmen and their sons in the four city tribes, thus limiting their influence at elections. It cannot be said that the freedmen were as yet a large or incongruous element. The captives of the Italian wars were of course Italic people, of the same stock as their masters. This was true even of those taken in Etruria though most of them now spoke the Etruscan language. Of Greeks very few had been captured in the Pyrrhic War, and those were of excellent antecedents. The captives taken in the Punic War had later been given back by Rome. Among their slaves the only people that the Romans ranked inferior to themselves were the Sardinians, who had recently been brought to the block at Rome in large numbers, but these were considered fit only for hard labour and would not be able to gain their freedom in any large numbers. The resentment, therefore, that crops out in the new decree was probably due not to a political or social fear but rather to the dislike of the poorer citizens for slaves who had cheapened their labour. The segregation of the vote remained as a beneficial safeguard in the second century when hordes of slaves were bought in the Aegean. It was a measure to which Cicero later attributed the salvation of Rome’s political institutions.

Another act of even greater significance for the present was the distribution of the Ager Gallicus in small lots to Roman citizens. A daring tribune of 232, C. Flaminius, carried the measure in the plebeian assembly against the most strenuous opposition of a large group of senators and without consulting the Senate. As explanation of this opposition we hear only that the Senate considered it a measure which began ‘the demoralization of the people,’ and incited the neighbouring Gauls to believe that the Romans desired their territory, and hence directly caused the Gallic invasion of 225. We may suppose that there were other reasons as well. The senators might well have insisted that the government was not prepared to forgo the revenue which the rental of the tract brought, also that individual settlement by citizens was not a sound method, partly because it disregarded the rights of the allies, partly because it provided no sound political and social centres. The land belonged not to Rome but to the federation, and the only just method was to settle it by ‘Latin colonies’ like Ariminum in which all shared, and which provided not only healthy municipal centres but also compact garrisons in a frontier area. Lastly we may well believe that many senators disliked to lose the lucrative leaseholds on these public lands.

There is no doubt that the plebiscite disregarded allied rights and that the method of settlement was unwise, but the charge of demoralization, though probably brought, could not have been taken very seriously then, when the Romans still remembered that it had been a recognized policy of their ancestors to build up a sound stock of Roman and Italian soldiers by distributing conquered land in small lots to farmers. It is likely that the charge had been repeated under stress of great excitement in the Gracchan days, when it was pointed out that Tiberius Gracchus harked back to the precedents set by Flaminius. The criticism that the action excited the anger of the Gauls also seems unjustified in view of the fact that the Gallic raid came seven years later. Indeed the Gauls had already threatened Ariminum in 236, and vacant lands were as much of an incitement to raids as settled ones. It would be easier to believe that the Gallic threat of 236 was to some extent one of the arguments for sending Roman colonists to the support of the frontier post. The truth is that the hatred against Flaminius rose to such a pitch that he never received his due in Roman history, for the writers of the early period were all of the senatorial party. And we may well believe that this hatred was not so much due to the distribution of the land as to the fact that Flaminius in his legislation disregarded the Senate and the recently reformed centuriate assembly and brought his measure directly before the plebeian body. This procedure not only proved that the more conservative organ had failed to regain its standing by the reform, but also that the Senate was in serious danger of losing its control over such purely administrative questions as the disposal of the public land. We should add that the demand for land at this time did not prove to be very great. Gracchan landmarks have been found in this region which show that considerable areas were not taken for distribution at the first settlement.

While discussing such democratic measures, we may perhaps be permitted to anticipate slightly and mention the Claudian plebiscite of a few years later—the date is not certain—which Flaminius alone of senators supported. This law prohibited senators and their sons from owning sea-going ships of more than three hundred amphoras capacity (about 225 bushels). Livy’s comment is that lucrative occupations did not befit senators, an observation which is wholly credible and to be expected from a Cisalpine historian. Yet it is doubtful whether the tribunes who proposed the bill were especially concerned about decorum. Perhaps some senators had been lured by the new opportunities of trade with Sicily and Sardinia, and it was feared that private interests might warp their judgment in public affairs, or that business might entice them away from regular attendance upon the Senate. Such were apparently Julius Caesar’s reasons for re-enacting the rule during his consulship. The consequences of the law were not wholly desirable. The senators on the whole obeyed and invested their surplus in land. Doubtless farmers who wished to go to Picenum could now sell their lands near Rome at a better price, but the law restricted the interests of Rome’s statesmen too much. Roman legislation continued to disregard the claims of trade and industry and to overvalue landed property. The senators began to exploit the ager publicus, refusing to distribute it till compelled to, and the agrarian mind comes to dominate even international questions. We hear later of another restriction, which is usually considered to be a clause of the same law, prohibiting senators from taking state contracts. This measure, however, designed to keep the state contractor out of politics, was sound and might with advantage have been applied to the knights a century later.

VI.

THE GALLIC PERIL

 We have noticed that even before the distribution of the Ager Gallicus the Gauls looked with longing upon the land which their brothers had lost south of the Rubicon river. We hear of skirmishes as early as 238, though not from reliable sources. It is not unlikely that some of the Gauls had drifted back there while Rome was too busy in Sicily to take notice of them, and that the trouble was due to an effort to clear the region again. If we may believe Polybius there was no threat of a war till 236, when some of the Boian chieftains, without consulting their people, secretly invited Transalpine tribesmen to come and aid them in an attack upon Ariminum. When these warriors began to appear, Rome became alarmed and sent an army north to the defence of the colony. However, the invasion came to nought. The Boian populace, recalling the stories of the terrible punishment meted out by Cornelius Dolabella and Manius Curius forty-five years before, refused to march, and their refusal resulted in a civil war within the tribe which put an end to all thoughts of an invasion. The Romans, secure in the hope of peace within their borders, closed with due solemnity the portals of Janus.

Some years after the settlement of the Ager Gallicus, the Boii again began to plan an invasion. We are told by Polybius that Rome was then much concerned about Punic designs in Spain, fearing a renewal of the war with Carthage, and that because of the threat on her Gallic frontier she made a hasty agreement with Hasdrubal in Spain in 226. This question has already been discussed from the Carthaginian side, and it can be mentioned here only so far as it concerns Rome’s immediate policies. After the Truceless War (237) Hamilcar, contrary to the wishes of Hanno’s party, had secured the command in southern Spain, where he set himself to restore Carthaginian power. He did not, however, limit his ambitions to this objective, but advanced northward, subdued tribe after tribe, and as he acquired booty built up and trained an army. Rumours soon came to Rome that he was training the army for a war of vengeance upon Rome. Whether or not this was true—the most reliable of the early historians believed it—we can comprehend why the tales were so quickly borne to Rome. Massilia, Rome’s oldest Greek ally, whose trading posts on the eastern coast of Spain were being made useless by the Punic advance in the rear, doubtless kept up an effective propaganda at Rome. If Hamilcar conquered the whole of Spain, a large part of Massilia’s commerce would disappear; if he should cross into Gaul and cut the trade-route of the Garumna river, the easiest approach to the Atlantic would be severed. Induced by tales thus well-inspired, Rome sent envoys to confer with Hamilcar in 231. With ready wit Hamilcar told the envoys that he was only engaged in winning enough booty for Carthage to pay her annual indemnity to Rome. The envoys made no answer, but seem to have taken the occasion to form an alliance with Saguntum, a good trading post which was still free. Since Rome had no trade on the seas at this time we may reasonably suppose that it was her ally Massilia rather than Rome herself who was primarily concerned in keeping this port open. Hamilcar died in 229 and was succeeded by his son-in-law, Hasdrubal, who continued to advance in Spain even more successfully than his predecessor.

In 226 Rome heard of the threatened Gallic invasion. Since the Gauls were then recruiting in the Transalpine region above Massilia, the news may have come from her trusted ally, who continued to complain of Punic advances in Spain. Hasdrubal was now near the river Ebro. If he crossed that, the two Massiliote colonies of Emporiae and Rhode would be helpless, for their trading routes into the interior of Spain followed the river. In view of Massilia’s part in the war that followed—it was the Massiliote fleet which played the important role in the first naval battle—we must assume that Rome came to a complete understanding with her ally about this time. Rome’s envoys, at any rate, met Hasdrubal in 226 and expressed their concern. Hasdrubal was probably innocent of any untoward ambition, and to allay needless fears consented to sign an agreement that he would not cross the Ebro with an armed force. The treaty, then, was in the first instance meant to protect the interests of Massilia and in the second to allay fears at Rome. It is probable that the three parties concerned signed the treaty as was done in a similar instance later when Rome aided Massilia against the Ligurians. Since this treaty does not explicitly grant Hasdrubal any definite return for the restrictions imposed upon him, it has been frequently assumed that Rome tacitly surrendered her alliance with Saguntum and that the document marked the Ebro as the boundary line of their respective ‘spheres of influence.’ This assumption disregards the fact that Rome had never as yet shown any inclination to assume vague responsibility over spheres of influence, having invariably confined herself to definite alliances, and it is also to be noticed that the Ebro was very far from the Arno river, Rome’s northernmost boundary line. Hasdrubal’s quid pro quo was in fact the assurance that extravagant fears of him would now be allayed both at Massilia and at Rome, and that he could proceed with the conquest of Spain without further interference. Nothing was, or needed to be said about Saguntum, since there was enough unconquered territory in Spain for generations of expansion without touching that city. That Hannibal would later regard Saguntum as a dangerous port of entry for the enemy when he decided to march against Rome, was quite beyond the range of Hasdrubal’s immediate plans.

Relieved of anxiety about Spain, Rome now set about to meet the dreaded enemy on her northern frontier. At this time the Po Valley was thickly settled by the Celts who had been coming in, horde after horde, for about two hundred years. The strongest tribes were the Taurini (around Turin), the Insubres (in Lombardy and Piedmont), the Cenomani (between the Po and Lago di Garda), the Boii (south of the Po from Bologna to Piacenza), and the Lingones (north of the Ager Gallicus). The lower reaches of the Po for about fifty miles were marshy, frequently flooded, and contained few settlements. Venetia was inhabited by an old non-Celtic folk that had many customs in common with the Romans, claimed kinship with them and remained on friendly terms throughout the Gallic wars. Among the Celtic tribes, the Cenomani and some minor groups had also signed treaties of friendship and remained at peace throughout the war. A few years after the Roman settlement of the Ager Gallicus below Ariminum, the strongest tribes, the Boii, the Insubres, the Lingones and the Taurini, formed a league of Celts for the purpose of attacking Rome. Envoys were sent over the Alps to invite the aid of bands called Gaesati (lancemen) who were accustomed to hire themselves out as mercenaries. They were told of the ease with which Rome had been taken long ago by the Senones, and the wealth and available booty of the city were invitingly described. Large bands accepted the invitation, and the Celts were able to form an army of 50,000 foot and 20,000 horse and chariots, as well as to station strong forces along their frontiers against a possible invasion by the Cenomani and Veneti whom the Romans had induced to arm. This was in 225 BC.

 The Romans, who had not forgotten the sack of Rome, were thoroughly alarmed, for their enemy, if united, could muster two or three hundred thousand men. They took a census of all the available land forces throughout Italy, and the allies, as fully terrified as the Romans, responded quickly. The census of this year, probably the first made for all Italy, is one of the most valuable documents of the Republican period that has survived. The citizens amounted to 250,000 foot and 23,000 horse. This number included both active and defensive forces, ‘seniors’ as well as ‘juniors’, as we see by referring to the regular census of 234. The allies, who counted only the soldiers available for army duty, that is the ‘juniors’, listed about 350,000 of these. The most important of the allied contingents were the following: the Umbrians, who numbered 20,000; the Etruscans and Sabines (the latter being cives) 50,000 foot and 4000 horse; Latins, including Latin colonies, 80,000 foot and 5000 horse; Samnites, 70,000 and 7000; Messapians and Apulians, 50,000 and 16,000; Lucanians, 30,000 and 3000; allied Sabellic tribes, 20,000 and 4000. The Bruttians and Greek socii are not reported, but the Veneti and Cenomani actually sent 20,000 men across the border for guard duty. The lists give a fair idea of Italy’s population south of the Rubicon at this time. Since males over seventeen may be estimated as constituting about thirty-five per cent, of the free citizen population of Rome and the Ager Romanus, we may assume a citizen population of about 800,000 souls. In estimating the allied and Latin population there is less certainty. If we add the probable number of 4 seniors’, Bruttians and socii navales to the 350,000 listed, we may count upon about 600,000 males over seventeen years of age or a free population of about 1,700,000. The sum total of citizens and allies for Italy south of the Rubicon was therefore about 2,500,000. The present population of the same region is about six times that number.

To meet the expected attack Rome sent two consular armies north, each consisting of four legions of citizens (20,800 foot and 1200 horse) and 30,000 foot with 2000 horse of the allies. Besides these a reserve force of 20,000 Roman foot and 1500 horse with allied contingents of 30,000 foot and 2000 horse guarded Rome, while the Umbri, Veneti and Cenomani policed the frontier. One consul, L. Aemilius Papus, led his army to Ariminum, since the first attack was expected there, while a praetor watched the central Etruscan roads. The other consul, Atilius Regulus, was unfortunately detained in Sardinia. The Gauls did not attack Ariminum. They broke through the mountains, probably above Bologna, escaping even the forces of the praetor, and marched southward as far as Clusium, loading their wagons with booty. Both of the Roman armies started in pursuit, but the Gauls doubled on their tracks, enticed the praetor into battle before the consul arrived and slew six thousand men. Aemilius appeared, however, in time to rescue the remnants of the praetor’s army, and the Gauls concluded that they ought to bring their booty home to safety and recruit new forces before meeting so large an army. To avoid being caught between the frontier guards and the consul, they decided to march westward toward the sea and follow the coast-road up to the mountains. Closely followed by Aemilius, they reached the sea near Orbetello and started north¬ ward, when to their surprise they met at Telamon the forces of Atilius, who had been recalled from Sardinia and was marching Romewards from Pisa. For once the Roman intelligence service operated efficiently; both consuls soon learned what the situation was and were able to co-operate in encircling the enemy army. The Gauls formed in two lines back to back, the Boii and Taurini facing Atilius’ legions, while the Gaesati and Insubres met the attack of Aemilius. Atilius himself took charge of the combined cavalry forces, and before the main battle was joined, succeeded in driving off the horse of the enemy, though at the sacrifice of his own life. With the defeat of the Gallic cavalry, the victory of the legions was a foregone conclusion, but the Celts, completely hemmed in, fought with unusual endurance. Forty thousand were slain, among them being one of the chieftains, King Concolitanus. The other chieftain took his own life. Ten thousand prisoners were captured. The Romans too had suffered heavily, but Aemilius nevertheless marched north and raided the territory of the Boii before he returned home to celebrate his triumph.

The great dread of invasion was over for the present. But the Romans decided that they had had enough of Gallic raids, that Italy must have a safe frontier, that there could be no peace with the Cisalpine Gauls until they were completely subjected. Their objective was not to be attained for many years, but the task was at least begun with vigour. Both of the consuls of 224, Fulvius and Manlius, marched into the Boian country with large forces, and despite rains and pestilence succeeded in subduing the Boii, who signed an agreement to keep the peace—an agreement which they broke as soon as Hannibal crossed the Alps a few years later.

The consuls of 223 were Furius Philus and Gaius Flaminius. The latter, who had incurred the hatred of the Senate when tribune and who was too strong a personality to take second place, determined the campaign. His task was obviously to attack the Insubres, and he had the choice between crossing the Po below the friendly Cenomani, where however the river was wide and time would be consumed in building an extensive pontoon, or marching farther up toward Clastidium and crossing a narrower river in the face of the enemy. He chose the latter course, though at some cost in men. Finding his way blocked by strongholds like Acerrae, he made a detour through the friendly country of the Cenomani in order to attack from an exposed side. Somewhere below Bergamo he found the enemy. Leaving the contingent of the Cenomani behind, for he preferred to trust his fate to his own tried soldiers, he—with more bravado than wisdom—burned his bridges behind him and attacked. It is said that the Senate, terrified by omens, had sent letters demanding his return and abdication, and that he, suspecting the contents of the letters, had laid them aside unopened till after the battle. The story is plausible in view of the Senate’s hatred of the man. The Insubres had an army of fifty thousand, probably the equal of the consular forces, but they were quickly defeated. Ancient historians give the entire credit of the victory to the valour of the legions and the skill of the tribunes, criticizing the general for his recklessness in placing his army in a desperate situation. At Lake Trasimene Flaminius later showed that he lacked skill in strategy, and the criticism is probably just, but some credit is due to the officer who could inspire his men with such personal devotion as could this hero of the rank and file.

After the victory he opened and read his summons to return and lay down his command, but despite the warnings of his colleague he remained for some time in order to compel the enemy to send envoys to Rome with offers of peace. Notwithstanding the opposition of the Senate, Flaminius, together with his colleague, was voted a triumph by the devoted populace, after which both abdicated, thus permitting their successors to enter office in March, a month earlier than had been customary.

The Senate refused to listen to any Gallic offers of peace short of unconditional surrender, and the new consuls of 222, M. Claudius Marcellus and Cn. Cornelius Scipio, invaded the Insubrian territory. The Gauls had in the meanwhile secured the aid of 30,000 Gaesati from the valley of the Rhone. The Romans laid siege to Acerrae, north of Piacenza. In order to raise the siege if possible, the Insubres attacked Clastidium, south of the Po, where the Romans had left their stock of supplies in friendly country. Marcellus marched to the relief of this city with all the horse and light armed troops. During the clash of cavalry forces the Gallic chieftain, Virdumarus, challenged Marcellus to personal combat. Roman generals had long ago abandoned the duels of the heroic age, but they still were wont to lead their men and at times engage in the contest. Marcellus, though over forty-six years of age, when Roman soldiers usually were retired from active service, could still trust his arm. Piercing his enemy’s armour with a thrust of his lance, he unhorsed the barbarian and overcame him. The incident was later made the subject of an historical play written by Naevius, the first of its kind to be produced at Rome. Marcellus easily put the enemy to flight, re-crossed the river and joined Scipio, who had meanwhile taken Acerrae. The two consuls advanced upon Mediolanum (Milan), the chief city of the tribe, and stormed it. The Insubres now surrendered without conditions, gave up some territory on which the colony of Cremona was presently planted, and pledged themselves to keep the peace. Thus Cisalpine Gaul was conquered—or so it seemed at the time. Unfortunately for the Celts and for Italy, the invasion of Hannibal invited them later to revolt, which resulted in a long series of wars at the end of which few Celts outside of the Cenomani remained below the foothills of the Alps.

There was still the north-east corner of Italy, a strip of Histrian coastland between the Veneti and the Julian Alps, where the peninsula seemed exposed to danger. The Senate, determined to be thorough, sent the consuls of 221 to this place to demand the submission of all the tribes as far as the mountain passes. An excuse—for this seemed to be necessary in the Senate’s conception of international affairs—was available in the pirating expeditions that some of these people engaged in. The work was completed in 220.

VII.

ROMAN POLICY

Rome had now reached her natural boundaries. To be sure, a large area of barbaric Ligurian territory lay within the limits, and Rome made no effort for the present to plant forts at the Alpine passes, but at any rate raids were not likely to be organized within the peninsula, nor could an enemy be invited from beyond the Alps without incurring the danger of speedy punishment. Two Latin colonies were at once organized as guards for the Po region and planted in 218. Placentia was placed at the far end of the Boian territory, while Cremona was placed north of the river on Insubrian land. Three thousand men were sent to each and given the same status as the colonists of Ariminum.

In 220 there was also a renewal of trouble with the Illyrians, whose buccaneers had first been subdued nine years before. This war came at an unfortunate time, for it kept the two consuls of 219 engaged in the Adriatic during the year that Hannibal attacked Saguntum. His decision to risk an invasion of Italy at that time was doubtless due to Rome’s preoccupation with the Illyrians. Had these two able consuls, Aemilius Paulus and Livius Salinator, been at home to give force to Rome’s warnings regarding Saguntum, the Hannibalic War might well have been fought to a speedy completion in Spain.

In surveying the petty border wars of this period it would be interesting to find a consistent external policy actuating the Senate or the popular leaders. The seizure of Sardinia and the war with the Illyrian pirates are at times credited to groups interested in commerce. Flaminius has been called an imperialist who carried Rome’s standards beyond the Po in the interest of a land-hungry population. A very recent theory finds in the whole period a conscious and consistent drive on the part of an astute Senate toward natural boundaries. However, though an interest in territorial expansion is to be assumed in the large body of small farmers represented in the latter years by the democrat Flaminius, and an appreciation of the value of defensible borders may safely be postulated in senatorial action, Rome seems throughout the period to have met immediate situations with practical remedies and without definitely outlined policies for the far-off future.

The supposed mercantilistic policy may be dismissed at once. There is no evidence that the Romans traded in the Ionian sea at this time. Other Italians and Greeks resident in Italy did, and the suppression of the Illyrian pirates benefited them, but we may doubt whether the Senate was ever deeply stirred by the wrongs done to allied merchants. It is more probable that in the case of the Illyrians the incentive was an appeal to Rome’s dignity and self-respect. The seizure of Sardinia, a harsh answer to the ascendancy of the anti-Roman faction in Carthage, can best be attributed to misplaced political nervousness. Nor is there any tangible evidence of imperialistic expansion in the wars with Liguria and the Gauls. In the recovery of the Arno valley the Senate revealed its characteristic habit of scrupulously guarding the frontiers of the federation. The Senate’s conferences and bargains with Hamilcar and Hasdrubal in Spain are best explained as efforts to allay the overstrained fears which Massilia had consciously nurtured for the protection of her own interests. To interpret them as an attempt to establish a Roman sphere of influence in Spain is wholly to misunderstand Rome’s methods and motives.

After the Gallic raid of 225 we are compelled to recognize a determination on the part of the Senate to subjugate Italy as far as the Alps in order to acquire a defensible frontier and to put an end to Gallic raids; but such a policy is not apparent before that. Had the Romans contemplated subduing northern Italy after the raids of 236, they would hardly have closed the portals of Janus with so much circumstance in 235. In any event, this Gallic war was not begun by Rome but by the Gauls. When forced to act, the Senate continued it into the enemy’s territory after the victory at Telamon, by sending the consuls of 224 to subject the Boii, by directing Flaminius beyond the Po in 223, and by refusing to consider peace overtures until the Insubres surrendered unconditionally to Marcellus and Scipio in 222. In this war it would be incorrect to single out Flaminius as the directing force on the ground of his democratic leanings. His campaign was a part of the whole advance and in no respect more aggressive than the campaigns of the several aristocratic leaders. That the Gauls were left in possession of their country, except for those whose lands were needed for two frontier colonies, would seem to indicate that land hunger was not the motive force. At any rate, we cannot conclude from the wars of these three or four years, wars imposed by the enemy, that success in the contest with Carthage had incited Rome to formulate a consistent policy of expansion, supposedly traceable in all her acts from 241 to 218. Throughout the period we are not aware of any controlling person at Rome who could have imposed a definite dogma for a long series of years. There was no continuing ‘foreign office.' The consuls held their command for one year, there are few instances of iteration, and as the Senate itself was constantly changing with the entrance of new members, the attitude of the Senate-changed as well. As usual, the Roman government was opportunist.

VIII.

THE ROMAN CONSTITUTION

Rome in theory continued to be the democracy that had been created by the Hortensian law of 287, but in fact the plebeian assembly had little to do but elect the tribunes and the plebeian aediles. During the period under consideration Flaminius, against heavy opposition, brought it into action to secure the distribution of the Ager Gallicus and to limit the commercial activities of the senators. That was of very great importance as a demonstration of what the assembly could do. And in 223 the plebeians also voted Flaminius a triumph when the Senate had refused him one. But after that we hear of no other plebiscites except that of Metilius, which defined what cleansing materials the laundries must use on various textiles. To such harmless activity the Senate could hardly take exception. The centuriate assembly was liberalized, but this was presumably in the interest of the nobles, who would naturally prefer to have a legislative body that, while acceptable to the populace, would be presided over by the consuls. And this assembly also found few occasions to vote except at elections. In 229, after the murder of a Roman envoy by the Illyrians, it was called upon to declare war, but in this case there could have been no difference of opinion. It also voted war against Carthage in 218, when the quarrel had been carried by the Senate to the point where war was the only issue possible. But the seizure of Sardinia and the recovery of the Arno valley seem to have been considered administrative acts wholly within the competence of the Senate; and the same body felt free to direct the invasion of the Po valley and determine the ultimate limits to which the Gallic war should be carried when once the Gauls had begun it. We are not told that the centuriate assembly in this case ratified the treaty. Since the assembly had not declared war, it may be that they were not called upon to close it. In a word, during this time the primary assemblies hardly ever expressed their will in any direct legislation.

The magistrates, elected by the assemblies, and the Senate, made up of ex-magistrates and therefore indirectly representative of the people, carried on the affairs of state. The consuls, while as powerful as ever in the field, were gradually being deprived of independence and leadership by the strong class-consciousness that pervaded the Senate, and by constitutional customs which in legislative activity compelled them to act with and through the Senate and the more conservative assembly. Flaminius, for instance, carried several radical measures to completion while tribune and later as censor; but during his consulship he found that he was expected to be the executive of the Senate’s orders. The urban praetor and the praetor peregrinus (an office instituted in 242), by their yearly revision of the praetor’s edict, largely removed the need of legislation in the field of civil and criminal law. The latter particularly, by his contact with non-Roman customs, was able to bring new living elements into Roman law. The date of 242 marks an epoch in the history of jurisprudence. The other two praetors exercised such full powers in their provinces in consultation with the Senate that legislative interference in what one might call colonial affairs did not appear for a long time.

 The censors retained the broad powers that they had held since Appius Claudius, but kept generally on good terms with the Senate. They seem to have interpreted the Ovinian law as essentially restricting their choice of senators to ex-magistrates. We hear of no abuse of their great censorial powers. How far they could carry their functions into the legislative field in emulation of Appius Claudius is shown in the drastic reform of the centuriate assembly—doubtless carried out with the concurrence of the Senate—and in the restriction of the freedmen to the urban wards. Since such acts had so direct a bearing on the very meaning of citizenship, one might have expected the sovereign people, who had struggled so hard for the passage of the Hortensian law, to claim competence in this field. If the democracy did not let itself be heard on such questions, it had little right later on to cry out that the senators and magistrates had usurped its powers. Plebeians had long been eligible for the high office of censor, but since the elective assembly had been conservative the change had had small effect. After the reform of the assembly, however, a popular favourite like Flaminius, distrusted by the Senate, could gain the office. He became censor in 220. We do not hear that he abused his charge by way of paying off old scores against his political enemies, but he did use its large powers in a characteristic way. He let contracts for a highroad to Ariminum, that is to the colonies which he planted contrary to the wishes of the Senate, and he also ordered the construction of a new circus in the campus for the use of a new series of games to be called the Ludi Plebeii. The patres apparently had to follow custom and assign the funds.

The Senate, therefore, practically governed Rome and the federation. We need not assume that it deliberately set itself against the spirit of the Hortensian law, or that it hampered independent magistrates. In its organization, its composition and its availability, it had every advantage and, with the growth of Rome’s business, silently gained power and esteem during peace as well as war. The senators, since they were ex-magistrates, were experienced judges, officers, and administrators. As men of note they had large personal followings, and as men of wealth and leisure they had time to devote to their work. They were ready for consultation every day. The body was small and could deliberate, and the spirit of noblesse oblige demanded that they deliberate without yielding to ulterior motives. They determined the diplomatic action that led to war or peace, and often when war was necessary manoeuvred the enemy into the declaration, so that it need not even be submitted to the people; the Senate was of course consulted by the consuls, who were also members, as to what forces should be summoned and paid for, and what the objective of the campaign should be. When peace was offered, the Senate could even delay negotiations till satisfactory terms were secured. When territory was acquired, it usually determined what disposition should be made of it. There were at this time probably fifty allies inscribed on Rome’s list, and, if a dispute arose with any of them, it was the Senate that heard the legations and decided the issues. There was a constant stream of administrative questions which the Senate discussed and settled without the knowledge of the Roman people.

We have for the first time in Roman history some reliable information regarding the personal traits of several of the senators. The type of man that appears most frequently in the Ciceronian epoch has already emerged, and there is but little variety. When the pontifex Caecilius Metellus, the hero of Panormus, died in 221, his son in a funeral oration spoke at length of his father’s ideals and endeavours. He had striven for the highest offices of state, for wealth honourably attained, for the respect of the community won by deeds of valour and counsels of wisdom, and he had desired a family of many children to survive him. That these purposes should be so candidly avowed is as significant as their content. Fabius Maximus Cunctator belonged to the same school. A stubborn conservative, he bitterly fought the reforms of Flaminius in the interests of the aristocratic constitution. Though scrupulous in every religious observance, he did not hesitate to employ the augural lore, of which he was master, in the defence of those interests. Always ready to take the command against Hannibal when others had failed, he was too prudent to be lured into traps, and yet lacked the versatility and speed of intellect to outwit his brilliant opponent on the field of battle. Marcellus, the hero of Clastidium, seems perhaps a trifle more aggressive, but only because his opportunities were more varied. He had no patience with strategy, always leading his men straight into the fight at fearful cost. He was religious enough to vow temples to the gods, but too eager for battle to observe auguries that might postpone the fray. When he captured Syracuse, works of art, human beings and gold all went into the same heap of booty, though he regretted, even if he failed to prevent, the death of Archimedes whose mechanical skill at least he had learned to respect. He delighted in leading his men into battle, accepted with alacrity the Gallic chieftain’s challenge to single combat, and fell at last in an ambuscade because he insisted on conducting his reconnoitring parties in person. From such men Rome could hardly expect brilliant or creative achievements, but they were in any case trustworthy counsellors of a people who insisted upon the ancient right of self-government. It was of men like these that Ennius wrote

Moribus antiquis res stat Romana virisque.

With such men in control there was little need of legislation. They preferred to feel their way through new problems by practical means rather than to use their imagination in plotting possible solutions beforehand. They trusted administrative experience to adapt the constitution and judicial practice to new needs. The people knew that the assemblies could be called if the senatorial machine failed to operate with efficiency, and that for the present seemed to suffice. And so year after year Rome by acquiescence became more and more an aristocracy. For the present the Roman people fared well; the question was whether with its growing power the aristocracy could retain its perspective and its high level of achievement.

CHAPTER XXVI

THE ROMANS IN ILLYRIA