Roman Imperialism/The People of Rome and Latium

by Tenney Frank

I

The People of Rome and Latium

Rome is situated about fourteen miles from the ancient coast line of the Mediterranean upon the low hills bordering the navigable Tiber. The Latian plain, which the city commands, stretches from the Tiber to the Volscian hills, and from the Sabine ridges to the sea; it may be crossed in either direction in a brisk day's walk. The soil¹ of the plain is productive. It is largely composed of disintegrating tufa and lava which flowed from surrounding volcanoes during the Tertiary period. Since, however, the land of central Latium is rolling, and consequently erodes quickly, whereas the basic tufa is comparatively hard and disintegrates very slowly, the arable soil is apt to wash away when stripped for long periods by the ax and plow. Nevertheless, the whole plain is so superior in productivity to the ragged limestone ridges which border it that its inhabitants were doubtless often compelled to defend their title by force of arms.

Before the Indo-European tribes reached central Italy, Latium was possessed by a race of unknown origin,² men of short stature and dark complexion, who had not yet learned the use of metallic implements. They are usually classed as members of the Mediterranean race. The Indo-European invaders began to enter Italy from the north and east during the third millennium B.C., and continued to come in wave after wave until they mastered the greater part of Italy. In the marshes of the Po valley the sites of the earlier of these immigrants can still be identified in the peculiarly formed "terremare" or "pile-dwelling." From a some what later period date the "Villanova" cemeteries of Umbria and Tuscany, which have yielded archæologists so rich a fund of treasure. It was doubtless a branch of this immigrating race which took possession of Latium some time before the millennium that ended with the birth of Christ.

The peoples of the terremare introduced the use of bronze implements and weapons into Italy. They employed most of the domestic animals and cultivated many of the cereals and fruits which were found in Italy in Cato's day. The men of the Villanova settlements were workers in iron also, and adorned their utensils and weapons with many pleasing, though simple, designs. Even though the excavations in Latium have as yet proved unsatisfactory, we can hardly doubt that the immigrant tribe which took possession of the lower Tiber valley was also far advanced in the arts of a stable agricultural people.

How these invading Aryans disposed of the previous possessors we do not know. In view of the facts that the Romans of historical times practiced inhumation by the side of cremation, that they employed several different marriage ceremonies, and that their language contains a large number of words not of Aryan extraction, it would be futile to insists that the invading Aryan tribe kept itself free from racial contamination. It is more likely that the victors, after having overcome all armed opposition, incorporated the remaining inhabitants, chiefly women and children of course, into their own tribe. If this be true, the Roman people were a mixed race whose chief elements were immigrant Aryans and conquered non-Aryans.³ However this may be, certainly the predominant element was Aryan, for the Latin language is a close relative of Greek and of Celtic. The names of the more primitive deities, e.g Jupiter, Janus, Diana, Saturnus, Vesta, Volcanus, Neptunus, contain Indo-European bases, and the characteristic institutions of family, tribe, and city are unmistakably Aryan in type.

By occupation the early Latins must have been shepherds and farmers, as, in fact, their ancestors had been before them, if the conditions revealed by the "terramara" and "Villanova" cemeteries may be drawn upon for evidence. The language⁴ of the Romans fairly smells of the soil: egregius, putare, planum, facere, saeculum, felix, are all metaphors borrowed from the fields. Many of their noble families bear names like Fabius, Piso, Lentulus, and almost all the gods of the oldest calendar, the di indigetes, the hierarchy of Saturnus and Robigus ("Seed-god" and "Rust-god"), were spirits worshiped by farmer and shepherd.⁵ The gods of arts and crafts and commerce, Apollo, Minerva, and Mercury, find no place there. Remarkably few traces of elaborate craftsmanship in Latium, native or borrowed, have been discovered, although the Etruscan towns near by are storehouses of Oriental and Egyptian ware.⁶ Apparently the roving instincts of a commercial people, as well as the nervous impulses of a manufacturing folk, were absent or dormant south of the Tiber. These people knew nothing of seacraft, for in their native vocabulary most of the words needed by seafarers are lacking.⁷ Nor were they notably warlike. Their army organization was in almost all respects borrowed from their neighbors, and they did not learn the art of making strong fortifications until the Etruscans introduced it from the East. We may infer that they had not extended their conquests far afield during prehistoric times, otherwise they would have come into territorial contact with the Greeks of Cumæ⁸ in a way that must have introduced the arts of Greek civilazation into Rome. It is apparent, therefore, that for centuries the Latins were a quiet, unwarlike, non-expanding, agricultural and pastoral people, and that, before the day when Etruscan conquests began to overcrowd central Italy, they had little call to resort to arms excepts to defend their flocks from the occasional raids of the Sabellic tribes which possessed less desirable land.

Regarding the early political institutions of the Latin tribe, we have only meager data, but there is little reason to believe that the city-state⁹ system which prevailed in historic times had long endured. Such a system is not usually found in conjunction with social conditions as primitive as those which must have prevailed in early Latium; for it tends to disintegrate tribal unity by creating strong centers of population. Now we know that the Latin tribe must have long remained a political unit, for no part of it developed a special dialect, and the worship of Jupiter Latiaris, the deity who dwelt upon Latium's highest hill, was recognized throughout the tribe. Harmony was indeed an absolute necessity of existence, since the tribe was small, possessed land much coveted, and was surrounded by hungry hill tribes ready at any moment to take advantage of civil jealousies in Latium. If we keep this fact in mind, we shall understand the import of the so-called Latin league. This league,¹⁰ according to the Roman historians, was based upon a compact formed by the Latian city-states for mutual protection. Such may have been its character in historical times, but it must have existed as a mere tribal union based upon feeling of kinship and common religion long before it was ever expressed in writing. Its origin in fact lies simply in the aboriginal tribal government of the Latin gens. What we may suppose, then, is that the Aryan invaders who took possession of Latium settled the land in village communities, as indeed most Aryan tribes have done in other parts of Europe, that they built their small clusters of houses together on convenient hills, farming the adjacent lands in common, and that the tribal government embraced all the villages of Latium. Such was the system of settlement still in vogue among the kindred hill tribes of Italy at a much later date. And if we attribute this system to Latium for the earlier period, we may understand the source of the tradition repeated by Pliny, that Latium once had fifty cities. It may well be that when the Etruscan invasion rendered life in the unprotected villages precarious, many of them were abandoned, and only such survived as lent themselves to ready fortification. The inhabitants of the many vici thus drifted into a few strong cities, and nothing remained of the numerous villages but the vanishing names of their shrines. Out of these names grew the legend that Latium had once been a land of many cities. Common ownership of land also gave way to private possession, perhaps during the same time of stress--at least at an early date--for the decemviral code of the fifth century already recognizes free testamentary right,¹¹ a right which presupposes a considerable development from the first recognition of private ownership.

In the social fabric of this early population a fairly rigid caste system came into existence, a record of which has survived in the well-known words "patrician" and "plebeian." The origin of this class system is still an unsolved problem. The Romans¹² themselves thought it political, that, in fact, Romulus had chosen certain elders as senators and that the descendants of these distinguished men were the nobility of Rome. But Romulus has now vanished from serious history, and, even if he had not, we should have to explain the nature of the success which designated these men as worthy of the distinction. The most widely accepted view¹³ discovers a basis for the distinction between plebian and patrician in the racial differences of the conquered inhabitants and the victorious invaders,--a view which seems to receive the support of a good historical parallel in the Norman conquest of England. In searching the evidence for a conquest that might have created this difference, critics have referred to the original invasion of the Aryan tribe, to the temporary subjection of parts of Latium by the Etruscans, which apparently took place during the sixth century B.C., and to the partial conquest by the Sabine tribes recorded by a doubtful tradition. Suffice it to say, however, that every attempt to prove that there were racial differences between patricians and plebeians, whether in ritual and ceremony, or in national traits, has been wholly unconvincing. It would seem that the people who met in prehistoric Latium were still in the social condition in which race amalgamation is quickly accomplished.

It seems futile to search further for evidence of racial differences. A more satisfactory explanation is suggested by the fact that economic conditions were such in Latium as readily to create class distinctions. In the first place, the land varied greatly in productivity.¹⁴ The Alban hills are high enough to attract a greater rainfall than the Latian plain secures, while the lands beneath the Sabine and Roman hills are aided by subsoil moisture from mountain springs. These things gave certain farmers a great advantage over others, since the dry season in Latium is normally very long. Secondly, since the central plains were quickly washed bare of soil if kept constantly exposed by cultivation, the farmers, who persisted in agriculture in such places must have found themselves reduced to a precarious existence. The cure for the evil lay in using such fields for winter grazing and acquiring summer pasturage on higher and less parched ground. But this remedy required both large capital and native wit. Under the circumstances it was inevitable that some men became lords of extended fields and persons of influence in the state, while others were reduced to economic and political dependence upon them. Eventually, the influential men took the legal steps necessary to secure predominance for themselves and their descendants; they stereotyped that caste system by ordaining that they alone, the patricii, could hold offices of state, they alone could consult the auspices in behalf of the city, and that their ranks should not be contaminated by intermarriage with plebeians.

There is, however, a striking peculiarity in Rome's caste system which deserves attention. In other states under conditions resembling those of early Latium, economic laws usually worked without check until a feudal system grew up in which the lower class was reduced to serfdom. Such serfs were the helots of Sparta, Crete, Thessaly, and other states of early Greece, the subject tenants of ancient Egypt and of medieval Europe. In early Rome the plebeians seem never to have become serfs; they were not, so far as we know, bound to the soil.¹⁵ This circumstance may be due to a certain sense of equity which is so prominent a characteristic in the legislation of this people. But it is more likely that local conditions saved the Romans from the paralyzing effects of a feudal system. A period of Etruscan rule checked the normal development of oligarchy at Rome, and, after the nobility succeeded in ridding itself of this,¹⁶ new methods of warfare had been introduced which made a real feudal system obsolete. The old--we may say the Homeric--military methods of single combat were being displaced. On the north the Etruscans¹⁷ had introduced the Greek armor and hoplite army. On the south, the Greek colonies were teaching the new methods to the neighboring Italic tribes. The Roman nobles were therefore compelled in self-defense to discard their ancient manner of warfare and to form solid legions for which the inclusion of the plebeian soldier was a necessity. But in bringing the plebeian host into the line they made it aware of its own worth and gave it an opportunity to demand political rights. Tradition¹⁸ is probably near the truth when it asserts that the populace of Rome saved its rights and won political privilege by means of military boycotts. But whatever it was that saved Rome from the feudal system, which established itself for a period at least in almost all other ancient states, the fact that she did escape is very important to an understanding of her later military successes.

Finally, the peculiar characteristic of the Roman people can be noticed in various legal institutions which it is well to bear in mind from the very beginning. A sense of fair play and a respect for legal orderliness permeates the whole early history of this people. The Romans were always unusually liberal in their practice of emancipating slaves and of giving the privileges of citizenship to freed slaves, whereas the Greeks consistently refused to incorporate freedmen into the citizen body. Again, the Romans early established a distinct court of equity--that of the praetor peregrinus--for cases in which foreigners were involved, so that strangers who did not know the Roman mos maiorum might find equitable treatment in their business dealings with citizens. Of the same general nature is the ancient custom of prohibiting the sale and employment of debtor slaves within the borders of Latium, and the practice of exacting a treaty of federation from conquered enemies rather than a proof of subjection in the form of tribute.

Most striking of all is the fetial¹⁹ institution, an institution which has a special significance for the study of Roman imperialism, since it reveals the spirit of Rome's ius belli as nothing else can. From time immemorial a semipolitical, priestly board existed whose province it was to supervise the rites peculiar to the declaration of war and the swearing of treaties, and which formed, as it were, a court of first instance in such questions of international disputes as the proper treatment of envoys and the execution of extradition. When any complaint arose that a neighboring tribe had committed an act of war it was the duty of this board to investigate the matter for the senate, and, if it found the complaint just, to send its herald to the offending state with a demand for restitution. His formula reads: "If I unjustly or impiously demand that the aforesaid offenders be surrendered, then permit me not to return to my country."²⁰ If restitution was not made, a respite of thirty days was given, after which the herald notified the offending states that force would be used, employing the following formula: "Hear me, Jupiter and Quirinus, and all other gods, I call you to witness that this nation is unjust and does not duly practice righteousness; and our elders will consider by what measures we may secure our dues."²¹ The same fetial board supervised the rites of treaty making at the conclusion of wars, using the following form of oath: "If the Roman people break this treaty, then do thou, Jupiter, so strike down the Roman people as I now strike this offering, and so much harder as thou art stronger."²²

Now if the practices of the fetial board were observed in good faith, it is apparent that peace must have been the normal international status assumed between Rome and her neighbors,²³ and that war was considered justifiable only on the score of an unjust act, -- for example, the breach of a treaty, a direct invasion, or the aiding of an enemy. None of the pharses or formulæ of the fetial presupposes for a moment the conception of international policies that possessed Solon when he advocated conquest for the sake of national glory, or Aristotle when he justified the subjugation of barbarians on the score of national superiority, or that actuated oriental nations to fight for the extension of their religion, or modern statesmen to employ war as a means of furthering commercial interests. The early Roman practice rested rather upon the naïve assumption that tribes and states, being collections of individuals, must conduct themselves with justice and good faith, even as individuals.

Of course, no one would make the claim that the fetial rule invariably secured justice.²⁴ Grievances usually appear more serious to the offended than to the offender, and a casus belli can readily be discovered when intertribal enmity reaches the breaking point through an accumulation of petty offenses, or through natural antipathy. But the important point all is the fact established by the existence of this institution that the Roman mos maiorum did not recognize the right of aggression or a desire for more territory as just causes for war. That the institution was observed in good faith for centuries there can be little doubt. The use of flint implements in the ceremonies proves that it dated from the earliest times. The fact that Jupiter, who was guardian of the solemn fetial oath, was also the supreme deity of all the tribes adjacent to Latium must have tended toward a careful observance of the terms covered by the oath. In these circumstances the Romans could hardly imagine themselves as the god's favorite people, possessing an exclusive monopoly of his protective power in the event that they chose to disregard the treaties which he had been called upon to witness. Finally, the respect that neighboring peoples showed for Rome's pledge of faith during the Punic war and the high praise which Polybius,²⁵ the first Greek observer of Roman institutions, accords the Roman rules of Warfare, testify to the fact that the fetial law was by no means a dead letter in historical times.

Now we need not suppose that it was a peculiar predisposition for morality that induced the Romans to inaugurate this important custom. Law and order were particularly profitable in Latium, which was a plain much coveted by the tribes who eked out a scanty livelihood upon the Sabine and Volscian ridges. It is a commonplace that tribes of the plains have always discovered the advantages of peace before the highlanders. For centuries conditions were such that the Latins had all to lose and little to gain by recognizing practices of brigandage and lawlessness. They accordingly reached the conviction naturally that neighboring tribes must dwell in peace, that brigandage must be suppressed, and that the rules of equitable dealing which are observed by well-balanced individuals must also hold between neighboring tribes. And if their less fortunately blessed neighbors did not understand this perfectly apparent truism, they were ready to issue their quos ego! through the mouth of the fetial priest. Whatever the origin of the institution, it had a profound influence upon Rome's international dealings, for it encouraged a calm deliberateness of action and spread the respect of Rome's word, two factors which combined to make Rome's organizing power irresistible.

Notes to Chapter I

1:	For the geology of Latium see Sir Archibald Geikie’s entertaining chapter on the Campagna in Landscape in History; and G. vom Rath, Zeitschr. d. d. geologischen Gesell. vols. XVIII and XX; for climatic conditions, see Philippson, Das Mittelmeergebiet. The relative productivity of Italian lands was about the same in Cicero’s day as now. While Tusculum and the Anio valley were considered fertile (Strabo, V, 238–9), the main part of Latium was not found to be very well adapted to staple products (Cic. de leg. agr. II, 96, Pliny, Nat. Hist. XVIII, 29). On the other hand, Campania, then as now, produced three crops per year by the aid of irrigation (Strabo, V, 250). Cato considered cattle raising as the most profitable occupation near Rome in his day (Pliny, Nat. Hist. XVIII, 29); grain takes sixth place in his list of important products (Cato, de ag. cult. I, 7).
2:	On ethnology, see Modestov, Introduction à l’histoire romaine, 1907; Montelius, La civilisation primitive en Italie; Peet, The Stone and Bronze Ages in Italy; Grenier, Bologne Villanovienne et Étrusque, 1913; and Munro, Paleolithic Man and Terramara Settlements (1912), ch. XII.
3:	It is a striking fact that while the inhabitants of Umbria, the makers of the Villanova cemeteries, regularly incinerated their dead, the inhabitants of Latium employed both cremation and inhumation. Pinza in his excellent survey of early Latian culture (Monumenti Antichi, XV, p. 730) finds that the early cemeteries of Alba Longa reveal a larger number of incineration than of inhumation graves, while those of the Roman forum and of the Esquiline hill reversed the ratio. It is usually conceded that cremation was an Aryan custom. On Indo-Germanic origins in general, see Hirt, Die Indogermanen.
4:	Weise, Charakteristik der lat. Sprache3, pp. 14 and 23.
5:	Wissowa, Religion und Kultus der Römer2, 1st chapter.
6:	E.g., the Regolini-Galassi tomb of Caere, cf. Pinza in Rom. Mitth. 1907, p. 35. See also Bolletino d’Arte, 1909, p. 161, and Pollak in Rom. Mitth. 1906, p. 329.
7:	See Mercantilism and Rome’s Foreign Policy, in Am. Hist. Review, 1913, p. 233.
8:	From Cumas they acquired the alphabet but little else. Cumaean traders were doubtless the intermediaries, and they may also be the source of Hesiod’s knowledge of the Latins, see Eduard Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums, II, 315; and Leo, Gesch. d. Rom. Lit., p. 9. Since Faliscan, a dialect very closely related to Latin, was spoken even under Etruscan dominion in Falerii, north of the Tiber, it may be that the Latin tribes originally extended somewhat north of the river. However, excavations reveal “Villanova” cemeteries at Veii and Corneto not far from Rome, and these seem to be of non-Latin origin; see Notizie degli Scavi, 1907, pp. 51 and 350.
9:	Eduard Meyer, s.v. Plebs in Handwörterb. der Staatswissenschaften, holds that the city-state must be posited for early Latium, but the village community is more consonant with Aryan custom. See Vinogradoff, English Society in the Eleventh Century, and Wilamowitz, Staat und Gesellschaft der Griechen, p. 41. Strabo, V. 241, informs us that certain Sabellic tribes still lived kwmhdon in historical times. The institution of compascuus — common pasture grounds — which still survived at a later day in Italy is doubtless a survival of the system. For probable survivals of the old village governmental system see L. R. Taylor, Cults of Ostia, p. 18 (Bryn Mawr, 1913), and more recently, Rosenberg, Der Staat d. alten Italiker.
10:	Dionys. IV, 49; V, 61; Diod. VII, fr. 3; Plin. Nat. Hist. III, 68. Seeck, Rhein. Mus., XXXVII, and Mommsen, Ges. Schriften, V, 69, have discussed the traditional lists of communities which once existed in Latium. Since these lists are not dated they are of little service to history.
11:	See Bruns, Fontes juris, Leges XII tabularum, V, 3, uti legassit super pecunia tutelage suae rei, ita jus esto.
12:	patres ab honore, patriciique progenies eorum appellati, Livy, I, 8.
13:	Ridgeway, Who were the Romans, 1908, has ably, though not convincingly, developed the view that the patricians were Sabine conquerors. Cuno, Vorgeschichte Roms, I, 14, held that they were Etruscans. Boni, Notizie degli Scavi, 1903, p. 401, believes that the patricians were the descendants of the immigrant Aryans, while the plebeians were the offspring of the aboriginal non-Aryan stock. Fustel de Coulanges, in his well-known work, La cité antique, proposed the view that a religious caste-system alone could explain the division. Eduard Meyer (cf. article Plebs in Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften) and Botsford (The Roman Assemblies, p. 16) have presented various arguments in favor of the economic theory. See Binder, Die Plebs, 1909, for a summary of many other discussions.
14:	See Am. Hist. Review, XVIII, p. 239, for a fuller treatment.
15:	Neumann's attempt to prove that the plebeians had been reduced to serfdom (Die Grundherrschaft der römischen Republik, 1900) attracted much attention and even gained the partial assent of Eduard Meyer. But it is based upon an imagined parallel to German conditions and has no foundation in known facts.
16:	See next chapter.
17:	Föohlich, Beiträge zur Geschichte d. Kriegsfúhrung d. Römer; Helbig, Sur les attributs des Saliens, 1905.
18:	Livy, III, 52.
19:	See The Import of the Fetial Institution, Class. Philology, 1912, p. 335, for a fuller discussion of this question; also Holtzendorff, Handbuch des Völkerrechts, I, 242.
20:	Livy, 1, 32, 7. The event here narrated is probably not historical, but since Augustus was reviving the old ceremonies with antiquarian care when Livy wrote, we may suppose that his version of the formulæ is an accurate copy of the ancient one. Augustus, himself a fetial priest, claims in his Res Gestae (V, 13) that he has observed the rules, nulli genti bello per iniuriam inlato.
21:	Livy, I, 32, 7.
22:	Livy, I, 24, 8.
23:	There seems to be no foundation for the frequently repeated generalization that in ancient times the normal international status was that of hostility, whereas in modern times states are normally assumed to be at peace with each other.
24:	The letter of the law was observed at times without regard to the spirit; notably in the Spanish affairs in 137 B.C. Fowler, in his brief account of Rome (Home University Library), has recently marked out “slimness” and treachery as characteristic of Roman diplomacy, illustrating the point by reference to Livy’s account (IX, 10) of the Caudine treaty. Nissen, however, has proved Livy’s account unhistorical: Rhein. Museum, XXV, I.
25:	XIII, 3, and frag., 157.