Part 2 — CHAPTER IV. Concerning the infallible teaching of the Roman Pontiff: (continued 13)

See GREEK EMPIRE OF NICÆA: A. D. 1204-1261

G. Finlay, History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders, chapter 4.

In the last days of the sham empire, Baldwin II. maintained his court "by tearing the copper from the domes of the public buildings erected by the Byzantine emperors, which he coined into money, and by borrowing gold from Venetian bankers, in whose hands he placed his eldest son Philip as a pledge."

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, from 716 to 1453, book 4, chapter 1, section 3 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 61.

For an account of the creation of the Empire of Romania.

See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204-1205.

ROMANOFFS, Origin of the dynasty of the.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1533-1682.

ROMANS, King of the.

Henry II.,—St. Henry by canonization—the last of the German emperors of the House of Saxony (A. D. 1002-1024), abstained from styling himself "Emperor," for some years, until he had gone to Rome and received the imperial crown from the hands of the Pope. Meantime he invented and assumed the title of King of the Romans. His example was followed by his successors. The King of the Romans in later history was Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire in embryo.

S. A. Dunham, History of the Germanic Empire, book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1).

"It was not till the reign of Maximilian that the actual coronation at Rome was dispensed with, and the title of Emperor taken immediately after the election."

H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 3, part 1.

ROMANUS, Pope, A. D. 897-898.

Romanus I. (colleague of Constantine VII.), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), 919-944.

Romanus II., Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), 959-963.

Romanus III., Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), 1028-1034.

Romanus IV., Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 1067-1071.

{2656a} {2656b}

A Logical Outline of Roman History

IN WHICH THE DOMINANT CONDITIONS AND INFLUENCES ARE DISTINGUISHED BY COLORS.

Physical or material. (orange) Social and political. (green) Intellectual, moral and religious. (brown)

Geographical position. (Orange)

Three Latin and Sabine tribes of an early day established their settlements on neighboring hills, by the banks of the Tiber, in the midland of Italy, which is the midland of the Mediterranean or midland sea. They were throned, as it were, at the center of the only wide dominion in which a virile and energetic civilization could rise in ancient times.

Patricians and Plebeians. (Green)

The union of these three tribes formed the patrician nucleus of Rome. Around them gathered another population of kindred blood, which acquired a certain footing of association with them, but not immediately on equal terms. The precedence and superiority of the primal families, in rank and in rights, was jealously maintained, and the later-coming plebs were received into a pseudo-citizenship which carried more burdens than privileges with it.

By what impulse of character, or through what favor of circumstance, at the beginning, this infant city-state grew masterful in war, over all its neighbors, none can tell. But as it did so, the sturdy plebeian populace which fought its battles resented more and more the greedy monopoly of offices and of conquered lands to which the patricians clung, and a struggle between classes occurred which shaped the domestic politics of Rome for more than two centuries.

B. C. 509, Founding of the Republic. B. C. 492, Tribunes o£ the Plebs.

Before that contest came to the surface of history, the oligarchy of the city had cast out the kings which were its early chiefs, and had put two yearly-chosen consuls in their place, thus founding the great Roman Republic, with a purely aristocratic constitution. Then the battle of the plebs for equality of rights and powers was promptly opened, and the long, significant process of the democratizing of the state began. By their first victory the commons seemed, for their own leadership and defense, a remarkable magistracy, protected by sanctities and armed with powers which never have been used in government elsewhere, before or since. With that great tribunician authority, invincible when capably and boldly wielded, they won their way, step by step, to equality in the high offices and sacred colleges of the state; to legislative equality in their assembly; to legality of intermarriage with the patrician class; and to participation in the public lands.

B. C. 480-275. Conquest of Italy. B. C. 264-202. Punic wars B. C. 214-146. Expanding Dominion.

But while plebs and patricians thus strove with each other at home, they were united against their neighbors in many wars, which seldom turned to their disadvantage. Æquians, Volscians, Etruscans, Latin allies, Samnites, Gauls, Greeks of south Italy, yielded in turn to their arms, until the whole Italian peninsula had been brought under Roman rule. Then followed intrusion in Sicily, collision with Carthage in that island, and the half century of Punic wars, which tried the Republic to the extremity of its powers, but which left it with no rival in the Mediterranean world, From that time the career of Roman conquest was rapidly pursued in widening fields. Sicily, Spain, Greece, Macedonia, Asia Minor, Southern Gaul, Northern Africa, submitted as provinces to the proconsuls of Rome.

Corruption. (brown)

But the health of the commonwealth waned as its greatness waxed. It was corrupted by the spoils of conquest and the streams of tribute money that flowed from three continents into its hands. It was leprous in its whole system with the infection of slavery.

Social and Political Degeneration. (green)

A middle class had practically disappeared. Freemen had been driven from industrial callings by servile competition; the small farms of rural Rome had been swallowed up in great slave worked estates; public lands had been drawn by one trick of law or another, into private hands. The greater mass of the common people had degenerated to a worthless mob. The democratic power which their ancestors won still belonged to them, but they had lost the sense and the spirit to exercise it, except fitfully and threateningly, for purposes that were generally base. A new nobility had risen out of the plebeian ranks; the senate, reinforced by it, and helped by the exigencies of the long period of war, had recovered control of government, keeping ascendancy over the mob by political arts and bribes.

B. C. 133-121. The Gracchi. B. C. 90-88. The Social War, B. C. 88-45. Civil Wars.

Thus came the fatal time when demagogues played with the passions of that fickle mob which bore the awful sovereignty of Rome in its keeping; and when patriots were forced to be as demagogues, if they sought to lift Roman citizenship from its muddy degradation. In the undertakings of the Gracchi, perhaps something of both demagogue and patriot was combined; but what they did only shook the decaying political fabric and unsettled it more. The extension of Roman citizenship to the Italian allies, which Caius Gracchus contended for, and which might have grounded the Republic on broad bases of nationality, was yielded in the next generation, but too late, and after a ruinous war. From the embers of that fiery Social War broke the flames of civil strife in which the old constitution was finally consumed. Marius, Sulla, Pompeius, Cæsar, were distinguished among its destroyers; Cicero and Cato earned their immortality in its defense.

B. C. 45-A. D. 486, The Empire.

By the genius of Cæsar a new sovereignty—an imperial autocracy—was founded, on the ruins of the shattered Republic. By the shrewdness of his wise nephew, Octavius, its enduring organization was shaped. The mighty fabric of the Roman Empire which then arose, to dominate the world for centuries, and to dominate the history of the world perhaps forever, owed its greatness altogether to the effective organization of government which it embodied. It inherited all the corruptions and diseases in society which had sickened and destroyed the Republic; but it extinguished factions at the seat of power, established authority there, and perfected a radiating mechanism of provincial administration such as had not been known in human experience before. Hence, emperors might be madmen or fiends or fools, as many among them were, and Rome might be a sink of all vices and miseries, as it commonly was, and the whole Empire might be grievously oppressed, as it seldom failed to be; but the working of the administrative system went on, with little disturbance or change,—so mighty and irresistible in its machinery that it seemed to mankind like a part of the natural world, and they lost the ability to think of any different political state.

Christianity. (brown)

Christianity, springing up in Judæa within the first century of the Empire, spread through and around it like an interlacing vine,—sweet and wholesome in its early fruits, strong as a bond, powerful as a regenerating influence. But when the ecclesiasticism of a politically fashioned Church had been grafted on the Christian vine, it bore then the evil seeds of new corruption, new discord, new maladies for the Roman world.

A. D. 476. Fall of the Empire in the West. (green)

So there came, at last, a time when the long-enduring frame of Roman government could no longer bear the increasing dead-weight of social paralysis within and the increasing pressure of barbaric enemies from without. Of real vitality in the Empire there had been little for half-a-century before its fall in the West.

A. D. 476-1453. Survival of the Eastern Empire.

It survived in the East, because its Greek capital was more impregnable, and more commandingly placed for the continued centralization of a waning power; and because habit and routine have more potency in the Eastern than in the Western world.

A. D. 800. Revival of the Western Empire.

Even Western Europe obeyed again, after more than four centuries, the obstinate habit of homage to Rome, when it restored the Empire of the Cæsars, though less in fact than in name.

{2657}

—————ROME: Start————

ROME: The beginning of the City-State and the origin of its name. The three tribes of original Romans who formed the Patrician order.- The Plebs and their inferior citizenship.

"About fourteen miles up from the mouth of the river Tiber, hills of moderate elevation rise on both banks of the stream, higher on the right, lower on the left bank. With the latter group there has been closely associated for at least two thousand five hundred years the name of the Romans. We are unable, of course, to tell how or when that name arose; this much only is certain, that in the oldest form of it known to us the inhabitants of the canton are called not Romans, but (by a shifting of sound that frequently occurs in the earlier period of a language, but fell very early in abeyance in Latin) Ramnians (Ramnes), a fact which constitutes an expressive testimony to the immemorial antiquity of the name. Its derivation cannot be given with certainty; possibly Ramnes may mean 'foresters,' or 'bushmen.' But they were not the only dwellers on the hills by the bank of the Tiber. In the earliest division of the burgesses of Rome a trace has been preserved of the fact that that body arose out of the amalgamation of three cantons once probably independent, the Ramnians, Tities, and Luceres, into a single commonwealth—in other words, out of such a 'synoikismos' as that from which Athens arose in Attica. The great antiquity of this threefold division of the community is perhaps best evinced by the fact that the Romans, in matters especially of constitutional law, regularly used the forms tribuere ('to divide into three') and tribus ('a third') in the general sense of 'to divide' and 'a part,' and the latter expression (tribus) like our 'quarter,' early lost its original signification of number. … That the Ramnians were a Latin stock cannot be doubted, for they gave their name to the new Roman commonwealth, and therefore must have substantially determined the nationality of the united community. Respecting the origin of the Luceres nothing can be affirmed, except that there is no difficulty in the way of our assigning them, like the Ramnians, to the Latin stock. The second of these communities, on the other hand, is with one consent derived from Sabina. … And, as in the older and more credible traditions, without exception, the Tities take precedence of the Ramnians, it is probable that the intruding Tities compelled the older Ramnians to accept the 'synoikismos.' … Long, in all probability, before an urban settlement arose on the Tiber, these Ramnians, Tities, and Luceres, at first separate, afterwards united, had their stronghold on the Roman hills, and tilled their fields from the surrounding villages. The 'wolf festival' (Lupercalia), which the gens of the Quinctii celebrated on the Palatine hill, was probably a tradition from these primitive ages—a festival of husbandmen and shepherds, which more than any other preserved the homely pastimes of patriarchal simplicity, and, singularly enough, maintained itself longer than all the other heathen festivals in Christian Rome. From these settlements the later Rome arose."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 1, chapter 4.

"Rome did not seem to be a single city; it appeared like a confederation of several cities, each one of which was attached by its origin to another confederation. It was the centre where the Latins, Etruscans, Sabellians, and Greeks met. Its first king was a Latin; the second, a Sabine; the fifth was, we are told, the son of a Greek; the sixth was an Etruscan. Its language was composed of the most diverse elements. The Latin predominated, but Sabellian roots were numerous, and more Greek radicals were found in it than in any other of the dialects of Central Italy. As to its name, no one knew to what language that belonged. According to some, Rome was a Trojan word; according to others, a Greek word. There are reasons for believing it to be Latin, but some of the ancients thought it to be Etruscan. The names of Roman families also attest a great diversity of origin. … The effect of this mixing of the most diverse nations was, that from the beginning Rome was related to all the peoples that it knew. It could call itself Latin with the Latins, Sabine with the Sabines, Etruscan with the Etruscans, and Greek with the Greeks. Its national worship was also an assemblage of several quite different worships, each one of which attached it to one of these nations."

Fustel de Coulanges, The Ancient City, book 5, chapter 2.

"The whole history of the world has been determined by the geological fact that at a point a little below the junction of the Tiber and the Anio the isolated hills stand nearer to one another than most of the other hills of Latium. On a site marked out above all other sites for dominion, the centre of Italy, the centre of Europe, as Europe then was, a site at the junction of three of the great nations of Italy, and which had the great river as its highway to lands beyond the bounds of Italy, stood two low hills, the hill which bore the name of Latin Saturn, and the hill at the meaning of whose name of Palatine scholars will perhaps guess for ever. These two hills, occupied by men of two of the nations of Italy, stood so near to one another that a strait choice indeed was laid on those who dwelled on them. They must either join together on terms closer than those which commonly united Italian leagues, or they must live a life of border warfare more ceaseless, more bitter, than the ordinary warfare of Italian enemies. Legend, with all likelihood, tells us that warfare was tried; history, with all certainty, tells us that the final choice was union. The two hills were fenced with a single wall; the men who dwelled on them changed from wholly separate communities into tribes of a single city. Changes of the same kind took place on not a few spots of Greece and Italy; not a few of the most famous cities of both lands grew on this wise out of the union of earlier detached settlements. But no other union of the kind, not even that which called Sparta into being out of five villages of an older day, could compare in its effects on all later time with the union of those two small hill-fortresses into a single city. For that city was Rome; the hill of Saturn became the site of Rome's capitol. the scene of her triumphs, the home of her patron gods. The hill on the other side of the swampy dale became the dwelling-place of Rome's Cæsars, and handed on its name of Palatium as the name for the homes of all the kings of the earth. {2658} Around those hills as a centre, Latium, Italy, Mediterranean Europe, were gathered in, till the world was Roman, or rather till the world was Rome. … Three tribes, settlers on three hills, were the elements of which the original commonwealth was made. Whether there was anything like a nobility within the tribes themselves, whether certain houses had any precedence, any preferences in the disposal of offices, we have no means of judging. That certain houses are far more prominent in legend and history than others may suggest such a thought, but does not prove it. But one thing is certain; these three tribes, these older settlers, were the original Roman people, which for a while numbered no members but themselves. They were the patres, the fathers, a name which in its origin meant no more than such plain names as goodman, housefather, and the like. In the Roman polity the father only could be looked on as a citizen in the highest sense; his children, his grand-children, were in his power, from which, just like slaves, they could be released only by his own special act. Such was the origin of the name fathers, patres, patricians, a name round which such proud associations gathered, as the three tribes who had once been the whole Roman people shrank up into a special noble class in the midst of a new Roman people which grew up around them, but which they did not admit to the same rights as themselves. The incorporation of a third tribe marks the end of the first period of Roman history. These were the Luceres of the Cœlian, admitted perhaps at first with rights not quite on a level with those of the two earlier tribes, the Ramnes of the Palatine, the oldest Romans of all, and the Tities of the Capitoline or hill of Saturn. The oldest Roman people was now formed. No fourth tribe was ever admitted; the later tribes of Rome, it must be remembered, are a separate division which have nothing to do with these old patrician tribes. And it must have been a most rare favour for either individuals or whole houses to be received into any of the three original tribes. … Now, if the privileged body of citizens is small, and if circumstances tend to make the settlement of non-privileged residents large, here is one of the means by which a privileged order in the narrower sense, a nobility in the midst of a nation or people may arise. An order which takes in few or no new members tends to extinction; if it does not die out, it will at least sensibly lessen. But there is no limit to the growth of the non-privileged class outside. Thus the number of the old burghers will be daily getting smaller, the number of the new residents will be daily getting larger, till those who once formed the whole people put on step by step the character of an exclusive nobility in the midst of the extended nation which has grown up around them. By this time they have acquired all the attributes of nobility, smallness of numbers, antiquity, privilege. And their possession of the common land—a possession shared constantly by a smaller number—is likely to give them a fourth attribute which, vulgarly at least, goes to swell the conception of nobility, the attribute of wealth. … Thus around the original people of Rome, the populus, the patres, the three ancient tribes, the settlers on the three earliest hills of Rome, arose a second people, the plebs. The whole history of Rome is a history of incorporation. The first union between the Capitoline and Palatine hills was the first stage of the process which at last made Romans of all the nations round the Mediterranean sea. But the equal incorporation of which that union was the type had now ceased, not to begin again for ages. Whatever amount of belief we give to the legends of Roman wars and conquests under the kings, we can hardly doubt that the territory of several neighbouring towns was incorporated with the Roman state, and that their people, whether they removed to Rome or went on occupying their own lands elsewhere, became Romans, but not as yet full Romans. They were Romans in so far as they ceased to be members of any other state, in so far as they obeyed the laws of Rome, and served in the Roman armies. But they were not Romans in the sense of being admitted into the original Roman body; they had no votes in the original Roman assembly; they had no share in its public land; they were not admissible to the high offices of the state. They had an organization of their own; they had their own assemblies, their own magistrates, their own sacred rights, different in many things from those of the older Roman People. And we must remember that, throughout the Roman history, when any town or district was admitted to any stage, perfect or imperfect, of Roman citizenship, its people were admitted without regard to any distinctions which had existed among them in their elder homes. The patricians of a Latin town admitted to the Roman franchise became plebeians at Rome. Thus from the beginning, the Roman plebs contained families which, if the word 'noble' has any real meaning, were fully as noble as any house of the three elder tribes. Not a few too of the plebeians were rich; rich and poor, they were the more part land-owners; no mistake can be greater than that which looks on the Roman plebs as the low multitude of a town. As we first see them, the truest aspect of them is that of a second nation within the Roman state, an inferior, a subject, nation, shut out from all political power, subject in many things to practical oppression, but which, by its very organization as a subject nation, was the more stirred up to seek, and the better enabled to obtain, full equality with the elder nation to which it stood side by side as a subject neighbour."

E. A. Freeman, The Practical Bearings of European History (Lectures to American Audiences), page 278-278, and 285-292.

See, also, ITALY, ANCIENT; LATIUM; ALBA; and SABINES.

ROME: Early character and civilization of the Romans. Opposing theories.

"That the central position of Rome, in the long and narrow peninsula of Italy, was highly favourable to her Italian dominion, and that the situation of Italy was favourable to her dominion over the countries surrounding the Mediterranean, has been often pointed out. But we have yet to ask what launched Rome in her career of conquest, and, still more, what rendered that career so different from those of ordinary conquerors? … About the only answer that we get to these questions is race. The Romans, we are told, were by nature a peculiarly warlike race. 'They were the wolves of Italy,' says Mr. Merivale, who may be taken to represent fairly the state of opinion on this subject. … {2659} But the further we inquire, the more reason there appears to be for believing that peculiarities of race are themselves originally formed by the influence of external circumstances on the primitive tribe; that, however marked and ingrained they may be, they are not congenital and perhaps not indelible. … Thus, by ascribing the achievements of the Romans to the special qualities of their race, we should not be solving the problem, but only stating it again in other terms. … What if the very opposite theory to that of the she-wolf and her foster-children should be true? What if the Romans should have owed their peculiar and unparalleled success to their having been at first not more warlike, but less warlike than their neighbours? It may seem a paradox, but we suspect that in their imperial ascendency is seen one of the earliest and not least important steps in that gradual triumph of intellect over force, even in war, which has been an essential part of the progress of civilization. The happy day may come when Science in the form of a benign old gentleman with a bald head and spectacles on nose, holding some beneficent compound in his hand, will confront a standing army, and the standing army will cease to exist. That will be the final victory of intellect. But in the meantime, our acknowledgements are due to the primitive inventors of military organization and military discipline. They shivered Goliath's spear. A mass of comparatively unwarlike burghers, unorganized and undisciplined, though they may be the hope of civilization from their mental and industrial qualities, have as little of collective as they have of individual strength in war; they only get in each other's way, and fall singly victims to the prowess of a gigantic barbarian. He who first thought of combining their force by organization, so as to make their numbers tell, and who taught them to obey officers, to form regularly for action, and to execute united movements at the word of command, was, perhaps, as great a benefactor of the species as he who grew the first corn, or built the first canoe. What is the special character of the Roman legends, so far as they relate to war? Their special character is that they are legends not of personal prowess but of discipline. Rome has no Achilles. The great national heroes, Camillus, Cincinnatus, Papirius Cursor, Fabius Maximus, Manlius, are not prodigies of personal strength and valour, but commanders and disciplinarians. The most striking incidents are incidents of discipline. The most striking incident of all is the execution by a commander of his own son for having gained a victory against orders. 'Disciplinam militarem,' Manlius is made to say, 'qua stetit ad hanc diem Romana res.' Discipline was the great secret of Roman ascendency in war. … But how came military discipline to be so specially cultivated by the Romans? … Dismissing the notion of occult qualities of race, we look for a rational explanation in the circumstances of the plain which was the cradle of the Roman Empire. It is evident that in the period designated as that of the kings, when Rome commenced her career of conquest, she was, for that time and country, a great and wealthy city. This is proved by the works of the kings, the Capitoline Temple, the excavation for the Circus Maximus, the Servian Wall, and above all the Cloaca Maxima. Historians have indeed undertaken to give us a very disparaging picture of the ancient Rome. … But the Cloaca Maxima is in itself conclusive evidence of a large population, of wealth, and of a not inconsiderable degree of civilization. Taking our stand upon this monument, and clearing our vision entirely of Romulus and his asylum, we seem dimly to perceive the existence of a deep prehistoric background, richer than is commonly supposed in the germs of civilization,—a remark which may in all likelihood be extended to the background of history in general. Nothing surely can be more grotesque than the idea of a set of wolves, like the Norse pirates before their conversion to Christianity, constructing in their den the Cloaca Maxima. That Rome was comparatively great and wealthy is certain. We can hardly doubt that she was a seat of industry and commerce, and that the theory which represents her industry and commerce as having been developed subsequently to her conquests is the reverse of the fact. Whence, but from industry and commerce, could the population and the wealth have come? Peasant farmers do not live in cities, and plunderers do not accumulate. Rome had around her what was then a rich and peopled plain; she stood at a meeting-place of nationalities; she was on a navigable river, yet out of the reach of pirates; the sea near her was full of commerce, Etruscan, Greek, and Carthaginian. … Her patricians were financiers and money-lenders. … Even more decisive is the proof afforded by the early political history of Rome. … The institutions which we find existing in historic times must have been evolved by some such struggle between the orders of patricians and plebeians as that which Livy presents to us. And these politics, with their parties and sections of parties, their shades of political character, the sustained interest which they imply in political objects, their various devices and compromises, are not the politics of a community of peasant farmers, living apart each on his own farm and thinking of his own crops: they are the politics of the quick-witted and gregarious population of an industrial and commercial city. … Of course when Rome had once been drawn into the career of conquest, the ascendency of the military spirit would be complete; war, and the organization of territories acquired in war, would then become the great occupation of her leading citizens; industry and commerce would fall into disesteem, and be deemed unworthy of the members of the imperial race. … Even when the Roman nobles had become a caste of conquerors and pro-consuls, they retained certain mercantile habits; unlike the French aristocracy, and aristocracies generally, they were careful keepers of their accounts, and they showed a mercantile talent for business, as well as a more than mercantile hardness, in their financial exploitation of the conquered world. Brutus and his contemporaries were usurers like the patricians of the early times. No one, we venture to think, who has been accustomed to study national character, will believe that the Roman character was formed by war alone: it was manifestly formed by war combined with business."

Goldwin Smith, The Greatness of the Romans (Contemporary Review, May, 1878).

A distinctly contrary theory of the primary character and early social state of the Romans is presented in the following: "The Italians were much more backward than the Greeks, for their land is turned to the west, to Spain, to Gaul, to Africa, which could teach them nothing, while Greece is turned to the east, to the coasts along which the civilisations of the Nile and the Tigris spread through so many channels. {2660} Besides, the country itself is far less stimulating to its inhabitants: compared to Greece, Italy is a continental country whose inhabitants communicate more easily by land than by sea, except in the two extreme southern peninsulas, which characteristically were occupied by Greek colonies whose earlier development was more brilliant than that of the mother country. … The equable fertility of the land was itself a hindrance. As far back as we can form any conjecture, the bulk of the people were shepherds or husbandmen; we cannot trace a time like that reflected in the Homeric poems, when high-born men of spirit went roving in their youth by land and sea, and settled down in their prime with a large stock of cattle and a fair stud of horses, to act as referees in peace and leaders in war to the cottars around. … Other differences less intelligible to us were not less weighty: the volcanic character of the western plain of central Italy, the want of a fall to the coast (which caused some of the watercourses to form marshes, and made the Tiber a terror to the Romans for its floods), told in ways as yet untraced ou the character of the inhabitants. For one thing the ancient worship of Febris and Mefitis indicates a constant liability to fever; then the air of Greece is lighter than the air of Italy, and this may be the reason that it was more inspiring. … Italian indigenous literature was of the very scantiest; its oldest element was to be found in hymns, barely metrical, and so full of repetitions as to dispense with metre. The hymns were more like spells than psalms, the singers had an object to gain rather than feelings to express. The public hymns were prayers for blessing: there were private chants to charm crops out of a neighbour's field, and bring other mischief to pass against him. Such 'evil songs' were a capital offence, though there was little, perhaps, in their form to suggest a distinction whether the victim was being bewitched or satirised. The deliberate articulate expression of spite seemed a guilt and power of itself. Besides these there were dirges at funerals, ranging between commemoration of the deceased and his ancestors, propitiation of the departed spirit, and simple lamentation. There were songs at banquets in praise of ancient worthies. … We find no trace of any poet who composed what free-born youths recited at feasts; probably they extemporised without training and attained no mastery. If a nation has strong military instincts, we find legendary or historical heroes in its very oldest traditions; if a nation has strong poetical instincts, we find the names of historical or legendary poets. In Italy we only meet with nameless fauns and prophets, whose inspired verses were perhaps on the level of Mother Shipton."

G. A. Simcox, A History of Latin Literature, volume 1, introduction.

ROME: Struggle with the Etruscans.

See ETRUSCANS.

ROME: B. C. 753. Era of the foundation of the city.

"Great doubts have been entertained, as well by ancient historians as by modern chronologists, respecting this era. Polybius fixes it to the year B. C. 751; Cato, who has been followed by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Solinus, and Eusebius, to B. C. 752; Fabius Pictor, to B. C. 747; Archbishop Usher, to B. C, 748; and Newton, to B. C. 627: Terentius Varro, however, refers it to B. C. 753; which computation was adopted by the Roman emperors, and by Plutarch, Tacitus, Dion, Aulus Gellius, Censorinus, Onuphrius, Baroius, bishop Beveridge, Stranchius, Dr. Playfair, and by most modern chronologists: Livy, Cicero, Pliny, and Velleius Paterculus occasionally adopted both the Varronian and Catonian computations. Dr. Hales has, however, determined, from history and astronomy, that the Varronian computation is correct, viz. B. C. 753."

Sir H. Nicolas, Chronology of History, page 2.

ROME: B. C. 753-510. The legendary period of the kings. Credibility of the Roman annals. Probable Etruscan domination.

"It may … be stated, as the result of this inquiry, that the narrative of Roman affairs, from the foundation of the city to the expulsion of the Tarquins, is formed out of traditionary materials. At what time the oral traditions were reduced into writing, and how much of the existing narrative was the arbitrary supplement of the historians who first framed the account which has descended to us, it is now impossible to ascertain, … The records of them, which were made before the burning of Rome, 300 B. C., were doubtless rare and meagre in the extreme; and such as there were at this time chiefly perished in the conflagration and ruin of the city. It was probably not till after this period—that is to say, about 120 years after the expulsion of the kings—and above 350 years after the era assigned for the foundation of the city, that these oral reports—these hearsay stories of many generations—began to be entered in the registers of the pontifices. … The history of the entire regal period, as respects both its external attestation and its internal probability, is tolerably uniform in its character. … Niebuhr, indeed, has drawn a broad line between the reigns of Romulus and Numa on the one hand, and those of the five last kings on the other. The former he considers to be purely fabulous and poetical; the latter he regards as belonging to the mythico-historical period, when there is a narrative resting on a historical basis, and most of the persons mentioned are real. But it is impossible to discover any ground, either in the contents of the narrative; or in its external evidence, to support this distinction. Romulus, indeed, from the form of his name, appears to be a mere personification of the city of Rome, and to have no better claim to a real existence than Hellen, Danaus, Ægyptus, Tyrrhenus, or Italus. But Numa Pompilius stands on the same ground as the remaining kings, except that he is more ancient; and the narrative of all the reigns, from the first to the last, seems to be constructed on the same principles. That the names of the kings after Romulus are real, is highly probable; during the latter reigns, much of the history seems to be in the form of legendary explanations of proper names. … Even with respect to the Tarquinian family, it may be doubted whether the similarity of their name to that of the city of Tarquinii was not the origin of the story of Demaratus and the Etruscan origin. The circumstance that the two king Tarquins were both named Lucius, and that it was necessary to distinguish them by the epithets of Priscus and Superbus, raises a presumption that the names were real. {2661} Müller indeed regards the names of the two Tarquins as merely representing the influence exercised by the Etruscan city of Tarquinii in Rome at the periods known as their reigns. … The leading feature of the government during this period is that its chief was a king, who obtained his office by the election of the people, and the confirmation of the Senate, in the same manner in which consuls and other high magistrates were appointed after the abolition of royalty; but that, when once fully elected, he retained his power for life. In the mode of succession, the Roman differed from the early Greek kings, whose office was hereditary. The Alban kings, likewise, to whom the Roman kings traced their origin, are described as succeeding by inheritance and not by election. … The predominant belief of the Romans concerning their regal government was, that the power of the kings was limited by constitutional checks; that the chief institutions of the Republic, namely, the Senate and the Popular Assembly, existed in combination with the royalty, and were only suspended by the lawless despotism of the second Tarquin. Occasionally, however, we meet with the idea that the kings were absolute."

Sir G. C. Lewis, Inquiry into the Credibility of Early Roman History, chapter 11, sections 39-40 (volume 1).

"Of the kings of Rome we have no direct contemporary evidence; we know them only from tradition, and from the traces they left behind them in the Republican constitution which followed. But the 'method of survivals' has here been applied by a master-hand [Mommsen]; and we can be fairly sure, not only of the fact that monarchy actually existed at Rome, but even of some at least of its leading characteristics. Here we have kingship no longer denoting, as in Homer, a social position of chieftaincy which bears with it certain vaguely-conceived prerogatives, but a clearly defined magistracy within the fully realised State. The rights and duties of the Rex are indeed defined by no documents, and the spirit of the age still seems to be obedience and trust; but we also find the marks of a formal customary procedure, which is already hardening into constitutional practice, and will in time further harden into constitutional law. The monarchy has ceased to be hereditary, if it ever was so; and the method of appointment, though we are uncertain as to its exact nature, is beyond doubt regulated with precision, and expressed in technical terms."

W. W. Fowler, The City-State of the Greeks and Romans, pages 74-75.

"The analogy of other states, no less than the subsequent constitution of Rome, which always retained the marks of its first monarchical complexion, leaves us in no doubt that kings once reigned in Rome, and that by a determined uprising of the people they were expelled, leaving in the Roman mind an ineradicable hatred of the very name. We have to be content with these hard facts, extracted from those thrilling stories with which Livy adorns the reign and the expulsion of Tarquinius Superbus."

R. F. Horton, History of the Romans, chapter 2.

The names of the kings, with the dates assigned to them, are as follows: Romulus, B. C. 753-717; Numa Pompilius, B. C. 715-673; Tullus Hostilius, B. C. 673-642; Ancus Martius, B. C. 641-617; Lucius Tarquinius Priscus, B. C. 616-579; Servius Tullius, B. C. 578-535; Tarquinius Superbus, B. C. 534-510.

According to the legend of early Rome, Romulus attracted inhabitants to the city he had founded by establishing within its walls a sanctuary or refuge, for escaped slaves, outlaws and the like. But he could not in a fair way procure wives for these rough settlers, because marriage with them was disdained by the reputable people of neighboring cities. Therefore he arranged for an imposing celebration of games at Rome, in honor of the god Consus, and invited his neighbors, the Sabines, to witness them. These came unsuspectingly with their wives and daughters, and, when they were absorbed in the show, the Romans, at a given signal, rushed on them and carried off such women as they chose to make captive. A long and obstinate war ensued, which was ended by the interposition of the women concerned, who had become reconciled to their Roman husbands and satisfied to remain with them.

Livy, History, chapter 9.

"We cannot … agree with Niebuhr, who thinks he can discover some historical facts through this legendary mist. As he supposes, the inhabitants of the Palatine had not the right of intermarriage ('connubium') with their Sabine neighbours on the Capitoline and the Quirinal. This inferiority of the Palatine Romans to the Sabines of the Capitoline and Quirinal hills caused discontent and war. The right of intermarriage was obtained by force of arms, and this historical fact lies at the bottom of the tale of the rape of the Sabines. Such a method of changing legends into history is of very doubtful utility. It seems more natural to explain the legend from the customs at the Roman marriage ceremonies"—in which the pretence of forcible abduction was enacted.

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 1, chapter 2.

"With the reign of the fifth king, Tarquinius Priscus, a marked change takes place. The traditional accounts of the last three kings not only wear a more historical air than those of the first four, but they describe something like a transformation of the Roman city and state. Under the rule of these latter kings the separate settlements were for the first time enclosed with a rampart of colossal size and extent. The low grounds were drained, and a forum and circus elaborately laid out; on the Capitoline Mount a temple was erected, the massive foundations of which were an object of wonder even to Pliny. … The kings increase in power and surround themselves with new splendour. Abroad, Rome suddenly appears as a powerful state ruling far and wide over southern Etruria and Latium. These startling changes are, moreover, ascribed to kings of alien descent, who one and all ascend the throne in the teeth of established constitutional forms. Finally, with the expulsion of the last of them—the younger Tarquin—comes a sudden shrinkage of power. At the commencement of the republic Rome is once more a comparatively small state, with hostile and independent neighbours at her very doors. It is difficult to avoid the conviction that the true explanation of this phenomenon is to be found in the supposition that Rome during this period passed under the rule of powerful Etruscan lords. Who the people were whom the Romans knew as Etruscans and the Greeks as Tyrrhenians is a question, which, after centuries of discussion, still remains unanswered; nor in all probability will the answer be found until the lost key to their language has been discovered. That they were regarded by the Italic tribes, by Umbrians, Sabellians, and Latins, as intruders is certain. Entering Italy, as they probably did from the north or northeast, they seem to have first of all made themselves masters of the rich valley of the Po and of the Umbrians who dwelt there. {2662} Then crossing the Apennines, they overran Etruria proper as far south as the banks of the Tiber, here too reducing to subjection the Umbrian owners of the soil. In Etruria they made themselves dreaded, like the Northmen of a later time, by sea as well as by land. … We find the Etruscan power encircling Rome on all sides, and in Rome itself a tradition of the rule of princes of Etruscan origin. The Tarquinii come from South Etruria; their name can hardly be anything else than the Latin equivalent of the Etruscan Tarchon, and is therefore possibly a title (='lord' or 'prince') rather than a proper name. … That Etruria had, under the sway of Etruscan lords, forged ahead of the country south of the Tiber in wealth and civilisation is a fact which the evidence of remains has placed beyond doubt. It is therefore significant that the rule of the Tarquins in Rome is marked by an outward splendour which stands in strong contrast to the primitive simplicity of the native kings. … These Etruscan princes are represented, not only as having raised Rome for the time to a commanding position in Latium, and lavished upon the city itself the resources of Etruscan civilisation, but also the authors of important internal changes. They are represented as favouring new men at the expense of the old patrician families, and as reorganising the Roman army on a new footing, a policy natural enough in military princes of alien birth."

H. F. Pelham, Outlines of Roman History, book 1, chapter 3.

ALSO IN: F. W. Newman, Regal Rome.

T. H. Dyer, History of the Kings of Rome.

ROME: B. C. 510. Expulsion of Tarquin the Proud. The story from Livy.

Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, or Tarquin the Proud, son of Tarquinius Priscus and son-in-law of Servius Tullius, brought about the assassination of the latter, and mounted the throne. "Lucius Tarquin, having thus seized the kingdom (for he had not the consent either of the Senators or of the Commons to his deed), bare himself very haughtily, so that men called him Tarquin the Proud. First, lest some other, taking example by him, should deal with him as he had dealt with Tullius, he had about him a company of armed men for guards. And because he knew that none loved him, he would have them fear him. To this end he caused men to be accused before him. And when they were so accused, he judged them by himself, none sitting with him to see that right was done. Some he slew unjustly, and some he banished, and some he spoiled of their goods. And when the number of the Senators was greatly diminished by these means (for he laid his plots mostly against the Senators, as being rich men and the chief of the State), he would not choose any into their place, thinking that the people would lightly esteem them if there were but a few of them. Nor did he call them together to ask their counsel, but ruled according to his own pleasure, making peace and war, and binding treaties or unbinding, with none to gainsay him. Nevertheless, for a while he increased greatly in power and glory. He made alliance with Octavius Mamilius, prince of Tusculum, giving him his daughter in marriage; nor was there any man greater than Mamilius in all the cities of the Latins; and Suessa Pometia, that was a city of the Volsei, he took by force, and finding that the spoil was very rich (for there were in it forty talents of gold and silver), he built with the money a temple to Jupiter on the Capitol, very great and splendid, and worthy not only of his present kingdom but also of that great Empire that should be thereafter. Also he took the city of Gabii by fraud. … By such means did King Tarquin increase his power. Now there was at Rome in the days of Tarquin a noble youth, by name Lucius Junius, who was akin to the house of Tarquin, seeing that his mother was sister to the King. This man, seeing how the King sought to destroy all the chief men in the State (and, indeed, the brother of Lucius had been so slain), judged it well so to bear himself that there should be nothing in him which the King should either covet or desire. Wherefore he feigned foolishness, suffering all that he had to be made a prey; for which reason men gave him the name of Brutus, or the Foolish. Then he bided his time, waiting till the occasion should come when he might win freedom for the people." In a little time "there came to Brutus an occasion of showing what manner of man he was. Sextus, the King's son, did so grievous a wrong to Lucretia, that was the wife of Collatinus, that the woman could not endure to live, but slew herself with her own hand. But before she died she called to her her husband and her father and Brutus, and bade them avenge her upon the evil house of Tarquin. And when her father and her husband sat silent for grief and fear, Brutus drew the knife wherewith she slew herself from the wound, and held it before him dripping with blood, and cried aloud, 'By this blood I swear, calling the Gods to witness, that I will pursue with fire and sword and with all other means of destruction Tarquin the Proud, with his accursed wife and all his race; and that I will suffer no man hereafter to be king in this city of Rome.' And when he had ended he bade the others swear after the same form of words. This they did and, forgetting their grief, thought only how they might best avenge this great wrong that had been done. First they carried the body of Lucretia, all covered with blood, into the marketplace of Collatia (for these things happened at Collatia), and roused all the people that saw a thing so shameful and pitiful, till all that were of an age for war assembled themselves carrying arms. Some of them stayed behind to keep the gates of Collatia, that no one should carry tidings of the matter to the King, and the rest Brutus took with him with all the speed that he might to Rome. There also was stirred up a like commotion, Brutus calling the people together and telling them what a shameful wrong the young Tarquin had done. Also he spake to them of the labours with which the King wore them out in the building of temples and palaces and the like, so that they who had been in time past the conquerors of all the nations round about were now come to be but his hewers of wood and drawers of water. Also he set before them in what shameful sort King Tullius had been slain, and how his daughter had driven her chariot over the dead body of her father. With suchlike words he stirred up the people to great wrath, so that they passed a decree that there should be no more kings in Rome, and that Lucius Tarquin with his wife and his children should be banished. {2663} After this Brutus made haste to the camp and stirred up the army against the King. And in the meanwhile Queen Tullia fled from her palace, all that saw her cursing her as she went. As for King Tarquin, when he came to the city he found the gates shut against him; thereupon he returned and dwelt at Cære that is in the land of Etruria, and two of his sons with him; but Sextus going to Gabii, as to a city which he had made his own, was slain by the inhabitants. The King and his house being thus driven out, Brutus was made consul with one Collatinus for his colleague."

A. J. Church, Stories from Livy; chapter 5.

ALSO IN: B. G. Niebuhr, Lectures on the History of Rome, lectures 8-9 (volume 1).

T. H. Dyer, History of the Kings of Rome, chapter 10.

ROME: B. C. 509. The establishment of the Republic. The Valerian Laws.

"However much the history of the expulsion of the last Tarquinius, 'the proud,' may have been interwoven with anecdotes and spun out into a romance, it is not in its leading outlines to be called in question. … The royal power was by no means abolished, as is shown by the fact that, when a vacancy occurred, a 'temporary king' (interrex) was nominated as before. The one life-king was simply replaced by two year-kings, who called themselves generals (prætores), or judges (iudices), or merely colleagues (consules) [consules are those who 'leap or dance together.' Foot-note]. The collegiate principle, from which this last—and subsequently most current—name of the annual kings was derived, assumed in their case an altogether peculiar form. The supreme power was not entrusted to the two magistrates conjointly, but each consul possessed and exercised it for himself as fully and wholly as it had been possessed and exercised by the king; and, although a partition of functions doubtless took place from the first—the one consul for instance undertaking the command of the army, and the other the administration of justice—that partition was by no means binding, and each of the colleagues was legally at liberty to interfere at any time in the province of the other.

See CONSUL, ROMAN.

… This peculiarly Latin, if not peculiarly Roman, institution of co-ordinate supreme authorities … manifestly sprang out of the endeavour to retain the regal power in legally undiminished fulness. … A similar course was followed in reference to the termination of their tenure of office. … They ceased to be magistrates, not upon the expiry of the set term, but only upon their publicly and solemnly demitting their office: so that, in the event of their daring to disregard the term and to continue their magistracy beyond the year, their official acts were nevertheless valid, and in the earlier times they scarcely even incurred any other than a moral responsibility."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 1.

"No revolution can be undertaken and completed with success if the mass of the people is not led on by some superior intellect. At the dissolution of an existing legal authority the only authority remaining is personal and de facto, which in proportion to the danger of the position is more or less military and dictatorial. The Romans especially acknowledged the necessity, when circumstances required it, of submitting to the unlimited power of a dictator. Such a chief they found, at the time of the revolution, in Brutus. Collatinus also may, during a certain time, have stood in a similar manner at the head of the state, probably from less pure motives than Brutus, in consequence of which he succumbed to the movement which he in part may have evoked. After Brutus, Valerius Publicola was the recognised supreme head and the arbiter of events in Rome with dictatorial power, until his legislation made an end of the interregnum, and with all legal forms founded the true and genuine republic with two annual consuls. The dictatorship is found in the Latin cities as a state of transition between monarchy and the yearly prætorship; and we may conjecture that also in Rome the similar change in the constitution was effected in a similar way. In important historical crises the Romans always availed themselves of the absolute power of a dictator, as in Greece, with similar objects, Aesymnetae were chosen. … How long the dictatorial constitution lasted must remain undecided; for we must renounce the idea of a chronology of that time. It appears to me not impossible that the period between the expulsion of the kings and the Valerian laws, which is our authorities is represented as a year, may have embraced ten years, or much more."-

W. Ihne, Researches into the History of the Roman Constitution, page 61.

"The republic seems to have been first regularly established by the Valerian laws, of which, unfortunately, we can discover little more than half obliterated traces in the oldest traditions of the Romans. According to the story, P. Valerius was chosen as consul after the banishment of Tarquinius Collatinus, and remained alone in office after the death of his colleague, Brutus, without assembling the people for the election of a second consul. This proceeding excited a suspicion in the minds of the people, that he intended to take sole possession of the state, and to re-establish royal power. But these fears proved groundless. Valerius remained in office with the sole design of introducing a number of laws intended to establish the republic on a legal foundation, without the danger of any interference on the part of a colleague. The first of these Valerian laws threatened with the curse of the gods anyone who, without the consent of the people, should dare to assume the highest magistracy. … The second law of Valerius … prescribe that in criminal trials, where the life of a citizen was at stake, the sentence of the consul should be subject to an appeal to the general assembly of the people. This Valerian law of appeal was the Roman Habeas Corpus Act."

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

See, also, CONSUL, ROMAN; COMITIA CURIATA; COMITIA CENTURIATA; CENSORS; QUÆSTORS, ROMAN; SENATE, ROMAN.

ROME: B. C. 494-492. The first secession of the Plebs. Origin of the Tribunes of the Plebs, and the Ædiles. Original and acquired power of the Tribunes. The two Roman peoples and their antagonism.

"The struggle [of plebeians against patricians in early Rome] opens with the debt question. We must realize all along how the internal history is affected by the wars without. The debtors fall into their difficulties through serving in the field during the summer; for of course the army is a citizen army and the citizens are agriculturists. Two patrician families take the side of the poor, the Horatii and the Valerii. {2664} Manius Valerius Publicola, created dictator, promises the distressed farmers that, if they will follow him in his campaign against the Sabines, he will procure the relaxation of their burdens. They go and return victorious. But Appius Claudius (whose family had but recently migrated to Rome, a proud and overbearing Sabine stock) opposed the redemption of the dictator's promise. The victorious host, forming a seventh of the arm-bearing population, instantly marched out of the gate of the city, crossed the river Anio, and took up a station on the Sacred Mount [Mons Sacer]. They did not mean to go back again; they were weary of their haughty masters. … At last a peace is made—a formal peace concluded by the fetiales: they will come back if they may have magistrates of their own. This is the origin of the tribunes of the plebs [B. C. 492]. … The plebs who marched back that day from the Sacred Mount had done a deed which was to have a wonderful issue in the history of the world; they had dropped a seed into the soil which would one day spring up into the imperial government of the Cæsars. The 'tribunicia potestas,' with which they were clothing their new magistrates, was to become a more important element in the claims of the emperors than the purple robe of the consuls."

R. F. Horton, History of the Romans, chapter 3.

"The tribunes of the people were so essentially different from all the other magistrates that, strictly speaking, they could hardly be called magistrates at all. They were originally nothing but the official counsel of the plebs—but counsel who possessed a veto on the execution of any command or any sentence of the patrician authorities. The tribune of the people had no military force at his disposal with which to inforce his veto. … There is no more striking proof of the high respect for law which was inherent in the Roman people, than that it was possible for such a magistracy to exercise functions specially directed against the governing class. … To strengthen an official authority which was so much wanting in physical strength, the Romans availed themselves of the terrors of religion. … The tribunes were accordingly placed under the special protection of the Deity. They were declared to be consecrated and inviolable ('sacrosancti'), and whoever attacked them, or hindered them in the exercise of their functions, fell a victim to the avenging Deity, and might be killed by anyone without fear of punishment."

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 2, and book 6, chapter 8.

"The tribune had no political authority. Not being a magistrate, he could not convoke the curies or the centuries [see COMITIA CURIATA and COMITIA CENTURIATA]. He could make no proposition in the senate; it was not supposed, in the beginning, that he could appear there. He had nothing in common with the real city—that is to say, with the patrician city, where men did not recognize any authority of his. He was not the tribune of the people; he was the tribune of the plebs. There were then, as previously, two societies in Rome—the city and the plebs; the one strongly organized, having laws, magistrates, and a senate; the other a multitude, which remained without rights and laws, but which found in its inviolable tribunes protectors and judges. In succeeding years we can see how the tribunes took courage, and what unexpected powers they assumed. They had no authority to convoke the people, but they convoked them. Nothing called them to the senate; they sat at first at the door of the chamber; later they sat within. They had no power to judge the patricians; they judged them and condemned them. This was the result of the inviolability attached to them as sacrosancti. Every other power gave way before them. The patricians were disarmed the day they had pronounced, with solemn rites, that whoever touched a tribune should be impure. The law said, 'Nothing shall be done against a tribune.' If, then, this tribune convoked the plebs, the plebs assembled, and no one could dissolve this assembly, which the presence of the tribune placed beyond the power of the patricians and the laws. If the tribune entered the senate, no one could compel him to retire. If he seized a consul, no one could take the consul from his hand. Nothing could resist the boldness of a tribune. Against a tribune no one had any power, except another tribune. As soon as the plebs thus had their chiefs, they did not wait long before they had deliberative assemblies. These did not in any manner resemble those of the patricians. The plebs, in their comitia, were distributed into tribes; the domicile, not religion or wealth, regulated the place of each one. The assembly did not commence with a sacrifice; religion did not appear there. They knew nothing of presages, and the voice of an augur, or a pontiff, could not compel men to separate. It was really the comitia of the plebs, and they had nothing of the old rules, or of the religion of the patricians. True, these assemblies did not at first occupy themselves with the general interests of the city; they named no magistrates, and passed no laws. They deliberated only on the interests of their own order, named the plebeian chiefs, and carried plebiscita. There was at Rome, for a long time, a double series of decrees—senatusconsulta for the patricians, plebiscita for the plebs. The plebs did not obey the senatusconsulta, nor the patricians the plebiscita. There were two peoples at Rome. These two peoples, always in presence of each other, and living within the same walls, still had almost nothing in common. A plebeian could not be consul of the city, nor a patrician tribune of the plebs. The plebeian dill not enter the assembly by curies, nor the patrician the assembly of the tribes. They were two peoples that did not even understand each other, not having—so to speak—common ideas. … The patricians persisted in keeping the plebs without the body politic, and the plebs established institutions of their own. The duality of the Roman population became from day to day more manifest. And yet there was something which formed a tie between these two peoples: this was war. The patricians were careful not to deprive themselves of soldiers. They had left to the plebeians the title of citizens, if only to incorporate them into the legions. They had taken care, too, that the inviolability of the tribunes should not extend outside of Rome, and for this purpose had decided that a tribune should never go out of the city. In the army, therefore, the plebs were under control; there was no longer a double power; in presence of the enemy Rome became one."

N. D. Fustel de Coulanges, The Ancient City, book 4, chapter 7.

{2665}

It is supposed that the tribunes were originally two in number; but later there were five, and, finally, ten. The law which created their office was "deposited in a temple, under the charge of two plebeian magistrates specially appointed for the purpose and called Aediles or 'housemasters.' These aediles were attached to the tribunes as assistants, and their jurisdiction chiefly concerned such minor cases as were settled by fines."

T. Mommsen, History of the Roman Republic (abridged by Bryant and Hendy), chapter 7.

"Besides the tribunes, who stood over against the consuls, two plebeian ædiles were appointed, who might balance the patrician quæstors. Their name seems borrowed from the temple (Ædes Cereris) which is now built on the cattle market between the Palatine and the river to form a religious centre for the plebeian interest, as the ancient temple of Saturn was already a centre for the patrician interest. The goddess of bread is to preside over the growth of the democracy. The duty of ædiles is, in the first instance, to keep the public buildings in repair; but they acquire a position not unlike that of police-officers."

R. F. Horton, History of the Romans, chapter 3.

The office of the curule ædiles (two in number, who were elected in "comitia tributa") was instituted in 366 B. C. These were patricians at first; but in 304 B. C. the office was thrown open in alternate years to the plebeians, and in 91 B. C. all restrictions were removed. The curule ædiles had certain judicial functions, and formed with the plebeian ædiles a board of police and market administration, having oversight also of the religious games.

R. F. Horton, History of the Romans, Appendix A.

ALSO IN: Sir G. C. Lewis, Credibility of Early Roman History, chapter 12, part 1.

B. G. Niebuhr, Lectures on the History of Rome, lecture 16.

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 2 (volume 1).

ROME: B. C. 493. League with the Latins.

See ROME: B. C. 339-338.

ROME: B. C. 489-450. Volscian Wars.

The wars of the Romans with the neighboring Volscians stretched over a period of some forty years (B. C. 489-450) and ended in the disappearance of the latter from history. The legend of Coriolanus (Caius Marcius, on whom the added name was bestowed because of his valiant capture of the Volscian town of Corioli) is connected with these wars; but modern critics have stripped it of all historic credit and left it only a beautiful romance.

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 4 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: A. J. Church, Stories from Livy, chapter 7.

ROME: B. C. 472-471.- The Publilian Law of Volero. Exclusion of Patricians from the Comitia Tributa.

"Volero Publilius was chosen one of the Tribunes for … [B. C. 472]; and he straightway proposed a law, by which it was provided that the Tribunes and Ædiles of the plebs should be elected by the plebeians themselves at the Assembly of the Tribes in the Forum, not at the Assembly of the Centuries in the Field of Mars. This is usually called the Publilian Law of Volero. For a whole year the patricians succeeded in putting off the law. But the plebeians were determined to have it."

H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 8 (volume 1).

"The immediate consequence of the tribuneship of the people was the organisation of the assembly of tribes, the 'comitia tributa,' whereby they lost their former character as factional or party meetings and were raised to the·dignity and functions of assemblies of the Roman people. … The circumstances which, in 471 B. C., led to the passing of the Publilian law, seem to indicate that even at that time the attempt was made by the patricians to change the original character of the tribuneship of the people, and to open it to the patrician class. The patricians intruded themselves in the assembly of the plebeians, surely not for the purpose of making a disturbance as it is represented, but to enforce a contested right, by which they claimed to take part in the comitia of tribes. … This question was decided by the Publilian law, which excluded the patricians from the comitia tributa and specified the privileges of these comitia, now admitted to be purely plebeian. … These were the right of meeting together unmolested in separate purely plebeian comitia, the right of freely and independently electing their representatives, the right of discussing and settling their own affairs, and in certain matters of passing resolutions [plebiscita] which affected the whole community. These resolutions were, of course, not binding on the state, they had more the character of petitions than enactments, but still they were the formal expression of the will of a great majority of the Roman people, and as such they could not easily be set aside or ignored by the patrician government."

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 8, and book 6, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: B. G. Niebuhr, Lectures on History of Rome, lecture 20.

ROME: B. C. 466-463. The Plague.

In the war of the Romans with the Volscians, the former were so hard pressed that "it became necessary to receive men and cattle within the walls or Rome, just as at Athens in the Peloponnesian war; and this crowding together of men and beasts produced a plague [B. C. 466-403]. … It is probable that the great pestilence which, thirty years later, broke out in Greece and Carthage, began in Italy as early as that time. The rate of mortality was fearful; it was a real pestilence, and not a mere fever. … Both consuls fell victims to the disease, two of the four augurs, the curio maximus, the fourth part of the senators, and an immense number of citizens of all classes."

B. G. Niebuhr, Lectures on the History of Rome, lecture 21.

ALSO IN: T. Arnold, History of Rome, chapter 11.

ROME: B. C. 458. Conquest of the Æqui.

"Alternating with the raids [of the Romans] against the Volsci are the almost yearly campaigns with the Æqui, who would pour down their valleys and occupy Mount Algidus, threatening Tusculum and the Latin Way which led to Rome. It was on one of these occasions, when the republic too was engaged with Sabines to the north, and Volscians to the south, that the Consul Minucius [B. C. 458] found himself hemmed in on the mountainside by the Æqui. Very beautiful and very characteristic is the legend which veils the issue of the danger. L. Quinctius Cincinnatus, ruined by a fine imposed upon his son, is tilling his little farm across the Tiber, when the messengers of the Senate come to announce that he is made dictator. With great simplicity he leaves his plough, conquers the Æqui, and returns to his furrows again."

R. F. Horton. History of the Romans, chapter 4.

ALSO IN: A. J. Church, Stories from Livy, chapter 9.

{2666}

ROME: B. C. 456. The Icilian Law. The early process of legislation illustrated. Persuasiveness of Plebeian Petitions.

"The process of legislation in early times has been preserved to us in a single instance in which Dionysius has followed the account derived by him from an ancient document. The case is that of the Lex Icilia de Aventino publicando (B. C. 456), an interlude in the long struggle over the Terentilian law.

See ROME: B. C. 451-449.

This Lex Icilia was preserved, as Dionysius tells us, on a brazen column in the temple of Diana on the Aventine. It seems unlikely that the original tablet in such a situation should have survived the burning of the city by the Gauls. Yet a record so important to the plebs would doubtless be at once restored, and the restoration would show at least the belief prevalent at this very early period (B. C. 389) as to the proper procedure in case of such a law. 'Icilius,' says Dionysius (X. 31), 'approached the consuls then in office and the senate, and requested them to pass the preliminary decree for the law that he proposed, and to bring it before the people.' By threatening to arrest the consuls he compelled them to assemble the senate, and Icilius addressed the senate on behalf of his bill. Finally the senate consented … (Dionys. X. 32). Then, after auspices and sacrifices, 'the law was passed by the comitia centuriata, which were convened by the consuls.' … Now here we have an order of proceeding under which the plebs have a practical initiative in legislation, and in which, nevertheless, each of the powers of the state acts in a perfectly natural and constitutional manner. … The formal legislative power lies solely with the populus Romanus. The vote of the corporation of the plebs is not then in early times strictly a legislative process at all. It is merely a strong and formal petition; an appeal to the sovereign assembly to grant their request. But this sovereign assembly can only be convened and the question put to it by a consul. If the consuls are unfavourable to the bill, they can refuse to put it to the vote at all. In any case, unless, like Sp. Cassius, they were themselves revolutionists, they would not think of doing so save on the recommendation of their authorised advisers. … The senate is assembled and freely dis·cusses the law. An adverse vote justifies the consuls in their resistance. Then follow tedious manœuvres. The senate treat with members of the college of tribunes to procure their veto; they urge the necessity of a military expedition, or, as a last resource, advise the appointment of a dictator. Such is the general picture we get from Livy's story. If by these means they can tide over the tribune's year of office, the whole process has to be gone through again. The senate have the chance of a lucky accident in getting one of the new tribunes subservient to them; or sometimes (as in the case of the proposal to remove to Veii) they may persuade the plebs itself to throw out the tribunician rogatio when again introduced (Livy, v. 30). On the other hand the tribunes may bring to bear their reserved power of impeding all public business; and the ultima ratio lies with the plebeians, who have the power of secession in their hands. In practice, however, the senate is nearly always wise enough to yield before the plebs is driven to play this its last card. Their yielding is expressed by their backing the petition of the plebs and recommending the consuls to put the question of its acceptance to the populus. With this recommendation on the part of the senate the struggle is generally at an end. It is still in the strict right of the consuls to refuse to put the question to the comitia. Livy (iii. 19) gives us one instance in the matter of the Terentilian law, when the senate is disposed to yield, and the consul 'non in plebe coercendâ quam senatu castigando vehementior fuit.' But a consul so insisting on his right would incur enormous personal responsibility, and expose himself, unsheltered by public opinion, to the vengeance of the plebs when he went out of office. When the consul too has yielded, and the question is actually put to the vote of the sovereign (generally in its comitia centuriata), the controversy has been long ago thoroughly threshed out. Though it is only at this stage that legislation in the strict sense of the word commences, yet no instance is recorded of a refusal on the part of the sovereign people to assent to the petition of the plebs backed by the recommendation of the senate."

J. L. Strachan-Davidson, Plebeian Privilege at Rome (English Historical Review, April, 1886).

On the bearings of this proceeding on the subsequently adopted Valerio-Horatian, Publilian, and Hortensian laws.

See ROME: B. C. 286.

ROME: B. C. 451-449. The Terentilian Law. The Decemvirs and the Twelve Tables.

Not long after the establishment of the tribuneship, "the plebeians felt the necessity of putting an end to the exclusive possession of the laws which the patricians enjoyed, and to make them the common property of the whole nation. This could only be done by writing them down and making them public. A proposal was accordingly made in the assembly of the tribes by the tribune C. Terentilius Arsa (462 B. C.) to appoint a commission for the purpose of committing to writing the whole of the laws. … It is not wonderful that the patricians opposed with all their strength a measure which would wrest a most powerful weapon out of their hands. … The contest for the passing of the bill of Terentilius lasted, according to tradition, not less than ten years, and all means of open and secret opposition and of partial concession were made use of to elude the claims of the popular party. … After a ten years' struggle it [the motion for a commission] was passed into law. It proposed that a commission of ten men, being partly patricians and partly plebeians, should be appointed, for the purpose of arranging the existing law into a code. At the same time the consular constitution was to be suspended, and the ten men to be intrusted with the government and administration of the commonwealth during the time that they acted as legislators. By the same law the plebeian magistracy of the tribunes of the people ceased likewise, and the ten men became a body of magistrates intrusted with unlimited authority. … The patricians did not act entirely in good faith. … They carried the election of ten patricians. … Having, however, obtained this advantage over the credulity of their opponents, the patricians made no attempt to use it insolently as a party victory. The decemvirs proceeded with wisdom and moderation. Their administration, as well as their legislation, met with universal approval. They published on ten tables the greater part of the Roman law, and after these laws had met with the approbation of the people, they were declared by a decision of the people to be binding. Thus the first year of the decemvirate passed, and so far the traditional story is simple and intelligible." {2667} The part of the tradition which follows is largely rejected by modern critical historians. It relates that when decemvirs were chosen for another year, to complete their work, Appius Claudius brought about the election, with himself, of men whom he could control, and then established a reign of terror which surpassed the worst tyranny of the kings, refusing to abdicate when the year expired. The tragic story of Virginia connects itself with this terrible oppression, and with the legend of its downfall. In the end, the Roman people delivered themselves, and secured the permanent authority of the code of laws, which had been enlarged from ten to twelve Tables.

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 9 and 10.

"The Twelve Tables were considered as the foundation of all law, and Cicero always mentions them with the utmost reverence. But only fragments remain."

H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 11.

"The most celebrated system of jurisprudence known to the world begins, as it ends, with a code. From the commencement to the close of its history, the expositors of Roman Law consistently employed language which implied that the body of their system rested on the Twelve Decemviral [Tables, and therefore on a basis of written law. Except in one particular, no institutions anterior to the Twelve Tables were recognised at Rome. The theoretical descent of Roman jurisprudence from a code, the theoretical ascription of English law to immemorial unwritten tradition, were the chief reasons why the development of their system differed from the development of ours. Neither theory corresponded exactly with the facts, but each produced consequences of the utmost importance. … The ancient Roman code belongs to a class of which almost every civilised nation in the world can show a sample, and which, so far as the Roman and Hellenic worlds were concerned, were largely diffused over them at epochs not widely distant from one another. They appeared under exceedingly similar circumstances, and were produced, to our knowledge, by very similar causes. … In Greece, in Italy, on the Hellenised sea-board of Western Asia, these codes all made their appearance at periods much the same everywhere, not, I mean, at periods identical in point of time, but similar in point of the relative progress of each community. Everywhere, in the countries I have named, laws engraven on tablets and published to the people take the place of usages deposited with the recollection of a privileged oligarchy. … The ancient codes were doubtless originally suggested by the discovery and diffusion of the art of writing. It is true that the aristocracies seem to have abused their monopoly of legal knowledge; and at all events their exclusive possession of the law was a formidable impediment to the success of those popular movements which began to be universal in the western world. But, though democratic sentiment may have added to their popularity, the codes were certainly in the main a direct result of the invention of writing. Inscribed tablets were seen to be a better depositary of law, and a better security for its accurate preservation, than the memory of a number of persons however strengthened by habitual exercise. … Among the chief advantages which the Twelve Tables and similar codes conferred on the societies which obtained them, was the protection which they afforded against the frauds of the privileged oligarchy and also against the spontaneous depravation and debasement of the national institutions. The Roman Code was merely an enunciation in words of the existing customs of the Roman people. Relatively to the progress of the Romans in civilization, it was a remarkably early code, and it was published at a time when Roman society had barely emerged from that intellectual condition in which civil obligation and religious duty are inevitably confounded."

H. S. Maine, Ancient Law, chapter 1.

ROME: B. C. 449. The Valerio-Horatian Laws.

On the overthrow of the tyranny of the Decemvirs, at Rome, B. C. 449, L. Valerius Potitus and M. Horatius Barbatus, being elected consuls, brought about the passage of certain laws, known as the Valerio-Horatian Laws. These renewed an old law (the Valerian Law) which gave to every Roman citizen an appeal from the supreme magistrate to the people, and they also made the plebiscita, or resolutions of the assembly of the tribes, authoritative laws, binding on the whole body politic.

H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 10.

See a discussion of the importance of the last mentioned of these laws, in its relations to the subsequent Publilian and Hortensian laws.

See, ROME: B. C. 286.

ROME: B. C. 445-400. The Canuleian Law. Creation of the Consular Tribunes. Progress of the Plebs toward Political Equality.

"The year 449 had not taken from the patricians all their privileges. Rome has still two classes, but only one people, and the chiefs of the plebs, sitting in the senate, are meditating, after the struggle to obtain civil equality, to commence another to gain political equality. … Two things maintained the insulting distinction between the two orders: the prohibition of marriage between patricians and plebeians, and the tenure of all the magisterial officers by those who formed since the origin of Rome the sovereign people of the 'patres.' In 445 B. C. the tribune Canuleius demanded the abolition of the prohibition relative to marriages, and his colleagues, a share in the consulate. This was a demand for political equality." The Canuleian law legalizing marriages between patricians and plebeians was conceded, but not until a third "secession" of the plebeians had taken place. The plebeian demand for a share in the consulate was pacified for the time by a constitutional change which formed out of the consulate three offices: "the quæstorship, the censorship and the consular tribunate. The two former are exclusively patrician. The military [or consular] tribunes, in reality proconsuls confined, with one exception, to the command of the legions, could now be chosen without distinction, from the two orders. But the law, in not requiring that every year a fixed number of them be plebeians, allowed them to be all patricians; and they remained so for nearly fifty years. In spite of such skilful precautions, the senate did not give up the consulate. It held in reserve and pure from all taint the patrician magistracy, hoping for better days. … The constitution of 444 B. C. authorized the nomination of plebeians to the consular tribunate; down to 400 B. C. none obtained it; and during the seventy-eight years that this office continued, the senate twenty-four times nominated consuls, that is to say, it attempted, and succeeded, one year in three, in re-establishing the ancient form of government. {2668} These perpetual oscillations encouraged the ambitious hopes of a rich knight, Spurius Mælius (439 B. C.). He thought that the Romans would willingly resign into his hands their unquiet liberty, and during a famine he gave very liberally to the poor. The senate became alarmed at this alms-giving which was not at all in accordance with the manners of that time, and raised to the dictatorship Cincinnatus, who, on taking office, prayed the gods not to grant that his old age should prove a cause of hurt or damage to the republic. Summoned before the tribunal of the dictator, Mælius refused to appear, and sought protection against the lictors amongst the crowd which filled the Forum. But the master of the horse, Serv. Ahala, managed to reach him, and ran him through with his sword. In spite of the indignation of the people, Cincinnatus sanctioned the act of his lieutenant, caused the house of the traitor to be demolished, and the 'præfectus annonæ,' Minucius Augurinus, sold, for an 'as' per 'modius,' the corn amassed by Mælius. Such is the story of the partisan of the nobles [Livy]; but at that epoch to have dreamt of reestablishing royalty would have been a foolish dream in which Spurius could not have indulged. Without doubt he had wished to obtain, by popular favour, the military tribunate, and in order to intimidate the plebeian candidates, the patricians overthrew him by imputing to him the accusation which Livy complacently details by the mouth of Cincinnatus, of having aimed at royalty. The crowd always can be cajoled by words, and the senate had the art of concentrating on this word 'royalty' all the phases of popular hatred. The move succeeded; during the eleven years following the people nine times allowed consuls to be nominated. There was, however, in 433 B. C. a plebeian dictator, Mamercus Æmilius, who reduced the tenure of censorship to 18 months. These nine consulships gave such confidence to the nobles that the senate itself had to suffer from the proud want of discipline shown by the consuls of the year 428 B. C. Though conquered by the Æquians, they refused to nominate a dictator. To overcome their resistance the senate had recourse to the tribunes of the people, who threatened to drag the consuls to prison. To see the tribunitian authority protecting the majesty of the senate was quite a new phenomenon. From this day the reputation of the tribunate equalled its power, and few years passed without the plebeians obtaining some new advantage. Three years earlier the tribunes, jealous of seeing the votes always given to the nobles, had proscribed the white robes, which marked out from a distance, to all eyes, the patrician candidate: This was the first law against undue canvassing. In 430 a law put an end to arbitrary valuations of penalties payable in kind. In 427 the tribunes, by opposing the levies, obliged the senate to carry to the comitia centuriata the question of the war against Veii. In 423 they revived the agrarian law, and demanded that the tithe should be more punctually paid in the future by the occupiers of domain land, and applied to the pay of the troops. They miscarried this time: but in 421 it seemed necessary to raise the number of quæstors from two to four; the people consented to it only on the condition that the quæstorship be accessible to the plebeians. Three years later 3,000 acres of the lands of Labicum were distributed to fifteen hundred plebeian families. It was very little: so the people laid claim in 414 to the division of the lands of Bola, taken from the Æquians. A military tribune, Postumius, being violently opposed to it, was slain in an outbreak of the soldiery. This crime, unheard of in the history of Roman armies, did harm to the popular cause; there was no distribution of lands, and for five years the senate was able to nominate the consuls. The patrician reaction produced another against it which ended in the thorough execution of the constitution of the year 444. An Icilius in 412, a Mænius in 410 B. C. took up again the agrarian law, and opposed the levy. The year following three of the Icilian family were named as tribunes. It was a menace to the other order. The patricians understood it, and in 410 three plebeians obtained the quæstorship. In 405 pay was established for the troops, and the rich undertook to pay the larger portion of it. Finally, in 400, four military tribunes out of six were plebeians. The chiefs of the people thus obtained the public offices and even places in the senate, and the poor obtained an indemnity which supported their families while they served with the colours. All ambitions, all desires, are at present satisfied. Calm and union returned to Rome; we can see it in the vigour of the attacks on external foes."

V. Duruy, History of Rome, volume 1, pages 231-239.

ROME: B. C. 406-396. The Veientine wars. Proposed removal to Veii.

"Veii lay about ten miles from Rome, between two small streams which meet a little below the city and run down into the Tiber, falling into it nearly opposite to Castel Giubileo, the ancient Fidenæ. Insignificant in point of size, these little streams, however, like those of the Campagna generally, are edged by precipitous rocky cliffs, and thus are capable of affording a natural defence to a town built on the table-land above and between them. The space enclosed by the walls of Veii was equal to the extent of Rome itself, so long as the walls of Servius Tullius were the boundary of the city. … In the magnificence of its public and private buildings Veii is said to have been preferred by the Roman commons to Rome: and we know enough of the great works of the Etruscans to render this not impossible."

T. Arnold, History of Rome, chapter 12 (volume 1).

"Rome and Veii, equals in strength and size, had engaged in periodical conflicts from time immemorial. … But the time had come for the final struggle with Veii. … How the siege lasted for ten years [B. C. 406-396]; how, at the bidding of a captured Tuscan seer, the Alban Lake was drained (and is not the tunnel which drained it visible to-day?); how Camillus, the dictator, by a tunnel underground took the city, and fore·stalled the sacrifice; how Juno came from Veii, and took up her abode upon the Aventine; how Camillus triumphed; and how the nemesis fell upon him, and he was banished—all this and more is told by Livy in his matchless way. It is an epic, and a beautiful epic."

R. F. Horton, History of the Romans, chapter 4.

{2669}

At the time of the conquest of Veii, there was a proposal that half the inhabitants of Rome should remove to the empty city, and found a new state. It was defeated with difficulty. A little later, when the Gauls had destroyed Rome, its citizens, having found Veii a strong and comfortable place of refuge, were nearly persuaded to remain there and not rebuild their former home. Thus narrowly was the "Eternal City" saved to history.

H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, book 2, chapters 13 and 15.

ROME: B. C. 390-347. Invasions by the Gauls. Destruction of the city.

"Before the time we are now speaking of, there had been a great movement in these Celtic nations [of Gael and Cymri]. Two great swarms went out from Gaul. Of these, one crossed the Alps into Italy; the other, moving eastward, in the course of time penetrated into Greece. … It is supposed that the Gael who dwelt in the eastern parts of Gaul, being oppressed by Cymric tribes of the west and north, went forth to seck new homes in distant lands. … At all events, it is certain that large bodies of Celts passed over the Alps before and after this time, and having once tasted the wines and eaten the fruits of Italy, were in no hurry to return from that fair land into their own less hospitable regions. We read of one swarm after another pressing into the land of promise; parties of Lingones, whose fathers lived about Langres in Champagne; Boians, whose name is traced in French Bourbon and Italian Bologna; Senones, whose old country was about Sens, and who have left record of themselves in the name of Senigaglia (Sena Gallica) on the coast of the Adriatic. … They overran the rich plains of Northern Italy, and so occupied the territory which lies between the Alps, the Apennines and the Adriatic [except Liguria] that the Romans called this territory Gallia Cisalpina, or Hither Gaul. The northern Etruscans gave way before these fierce barbarians, and their name is heard of no more in those parts. Thence the Gauls crossed the Apennines into southern Etruria, and while they were ravaging that country they first came in contact with the sons of Rome. The common date for this event is 300 B. C. … The tribe which took this course were of the Senones, as an authors say, and therefore we may suppose they were Gaelic; but it has been thought they were mixed with Cymri, since the name of their king or chief was Brennus, and Brenhin is Cymric for a king." The Romans met the invaders on the banks of the Alia, a little stream from the Sabine Hills which flows into the Tiber, and were terribly defeated there. The Gauls entered Rome and found, as the ancient story is, only a few venerable senators, sitting in their chairs and robes of state, whom they slew, because one of the senators resented the stroking of his beard by an insolent barbarian. The remaining inhabitants had withdrawn into the Capitol, or taken refuge at Veii and Cære. After pillaging and burning the city, the Gauls laid siege to the Capitol, and strove desperately for seven months to overcome its defenders by arms or famine. In the end they retreated, without success, but whether bribed, or driven, or weakened by sickness, is matter of uncertainty. The Romans cherished many legends connected with the siege of the Capitol,—like that, for example, of the sentinel and the sacred geese. "Thirty years after the first irruption (361 B. C.), we hear that another host of Senonian Gauls burst into Latium from the north, and, in alliance with the people of Tibur, ravaged the lands of Rome, Latium and Campania. For four years they continued their ravages, and then we hear of them no more. A third irruption followed, ten years later [B. C. 347], of still more formidable character. At that time, the Gauls formed a stationary camp on the Alban Hills and kept Rome in perpetual terror. … After some months they poured southwards, and disappear from history."