VOL. X.

No. I.

I

FIRST PAPER.

T is generally admitted that with possibly one exception, the most important nationality that ever has existed was the nationality of Rome. In using the word important, I mean, of course, all of those national peculiarities and characteristics which influenced in one way or another the condition, the happiness, and the civilization of mankind. What was it that gave Rome its power? How did it acquire and so long maintain its transcendent importance? What was the secret of its skill in organization and administration? What made it so tolerable and sometimes even so beneficent? Why was it able so long to maintain its ascendency, and why, in the end, was it forced to succumb? These are questions which cannot be answered without first having a pretty clear understanding of some of the essential characteristics of Roman society and Roman government.

I. THE ORGANIZATION OF SOCIETY.-The organization of Roman society rested in a very exceptional and peculiar sense on the organization of the family. The father was head of the family, not simply in the modern, limited sense of the term, but in that absolute sense which gave him power even over the life of his wife and children. He could kill either of them at will with impunity. This power continued as long as the father lived. The son never came to be of age in the sense of being exempt from the

father's absolute control. The family altar was the symbol of family unity and at that altar the father was the recognized priest.*

A group of families constituted the clan, a group of clans, a canton, and a group of cantons a tribe, and three tribes constituted the state.†

Precisely what the details of this organization were, it is impossible now to determine with historical accuracy. Nor is such determination important. All that in this connection we need to know is, that the state was made up of a number of distinct groups, each group consisting of a number of smaller groups, and these in turn of families related to one another by ties of blood. At the time when the organization of society took

To this general statement, however, one exception must be made. Whenever a daughter married, she ceased to be a member of her father's family and became a memcarried so far, that for legal purposes the children of ber of the family of her husband. This principle was daughters were not regarded as related to the children of sons. It was only through male descent that kinship was acknowledged. It will be seen at once that this plan

of organization gave to the family remarkable unity and solidarity.-C. K. A.

+ It is evident that if each tribe consisted of ten cantons, each canton of ten clans, and each clan of ten families, there would be thirty cantons, three hundred clans, and three thousand families. That so artificial an organization ever existed, there is no reason whatever to suppose; but certain known characteristics would be accounted for by such an actual or even theoretical organization. For

example, it is known that each clan furnished one senator, and that the senate in its early organization consisted of three hundred members. Each family, moreover, furpresumably because the number in each tribe was theoretically at least one thousand.-C. K. A.

nished a foot soldier (miles, or thousand-goer) so called

consent of the people procured in this way. With this consent any law could be enacted, that is to say, there were no constitutional limitations upon legislative authority. But the iniative was always with the king.

2. THE CIVIL GOVERNMENT.-In its earliest form the government was simple in its organization. As the father stood at the head of the family, the analogy above mentioned required that there should be a ruler or leader at the head of the state. Whether this ruler was at first formally elected, or whether his preeminence and powers enabled him to assume the position with common consent, cannot now be historically determined, for he was in power long before any record of events was preserved. What now seems to be certain is that the ruler never thought of ruling with out the consent of the governed. Although it is customary and convenient to speak of the period of the kings, it is quite correct to say that the government of Rome was, from the first, essentially republican in its nature. Rome never gave color to any such principle as divine right. It seems to be certain that the early rulers generally held office for life, but this fact did not prevent the people from deposing a king whenever they felt that the welfare of the state required such action. The king had the right of naming a successor, but this was always regarded as an acquired and not an inherent right. When the king neglected to exercise this right, the custom prescribed the method by which the successor should be chosen. Before speaking of the king's powers it is necessary to speak of the early assemblies. The most popular of these was the comitia curiata. It was an assembly consisting of all the freeholders. It was convoked regularly twice a year, and at such intermediate periods as was thought by the king to be necessary. The members had no power of speech or deliberation except such as might be given them by the king. The king addressed them questions, and they returned simple answers, approving or disapproving as they saw fit. The laws were the result of this process. A

The other and less popular assembly was the senate. As above stated, it consisted of three hundred members, one from each clan. As to how it originated, there is some doubt. The most probable conjecture appears to be that originally each of the clans had its own leader and that these came together as an assembly, as soon as the state had taken on a political form. It is probable, therefore, that the senate was coeval with the state. What is more certain, however, is the nature of the senate's authority. The senators sat for life, and ever after what may be called historical times, they were appointed by the king. Whenever a king died without naming a successor, a senator was chosen by lot to hold the position for five days. This five-days-king, known as interrex, appointed a successor who also ruled but five days. This second interrex nominated a permanent king, but the choice had to be confirmed by the comitia curiata. In a very important sense the senate, throughout Roman history, was the ultimate ruling power. It seems from the first to have been the guardian of the customs of the fathers, in other words the guardian of the constitution. It examined every new resolution that the king proposed. In case any existing right appeared to be threatened, it had the privilege of absolute veto. The senate's consent also had to be obtained before war could be declared. Generally, though not universally, the consent of the senate was obtained before a question was submitted to the popular assembly. The senate could not meet unless convoked by the king, nor could senators speak except in reply to questions proposed by the same authority. The king was not obliged to consult the senate on any other than matters involving constitutional questions; but as time went on, consultation became more and more usual, and the power and influence of the senate became more and more important.

3. MILITARY ORGANIZATION.-Rome has generally been regarded as in a very emphatic sense a military nation. Montesquieu, Merivale, and other writers of eminence have represented the early history of Rome as made up largely if not indeed chiefly of a series of

depredations committed by robber hordes. That the Romans were capable of achieving great military results is certain; but that they were exceptionally aggressive, admits of no proof whatever. Indeed there is far more evidence that they were exceptionally inclined to certain other things than to war. But there was unquestionably one striking peculiarity of their military methods that ought not to be overlooked. This is the fact that their military achievements were the results of extraordinary skill in organization and discipline rather than the results of extraordinary individual prowess.*

No nation-not even modern Germanyhas ever attached so much importance in military affairs to the invariable subordination of individual life and comfort to the great general object to be attained. This principle was carried into all branches of the service, and was at all times most rigorously enforced. The very name of the army, exercitus, implied constant exercise, and constant exercise meant interminable practice in the most exacting details of military drill and military evolution. Even when on the march, it was customary, whether the army was near the enemy or not, to throw up defensive earth-works completely around the encampment at every night's halt. Discipline in a comprehensive sense was the secret of all Roman success in war.†

4. THE GEOGRAPHICAL SITUATION.-The early ascendency of the Romans over the other Latin peoples of Italy must have been aided, and may even have been determined, by geographical and topographical peculiarities. The hills on which the city was built were high enough for observation and fortification, without being so high as to interfere with easy ingress and egress. Situated on a navigable river the inhabitants were far enough from its mouth easily to prevent the incursions of marauders, and near enough to facilitate every species of commerce with the outer world. The rich plains surrounding the city and stretching far away to the south afforded abundant agricultural supplies.

The typical illustration of this peculiarity is the example of a commander who put his son to death for fight

ing and winning a battle when he had been commanded not to fight.-C. K. A.

†The commander Manlius (Roman consul in 292 B. C.) is represented as saying: Disciplinam militarem qua stetit ad hanc diem Romana res. (Military discipline, by means of which the Roman state stands unshaken to this day.)

These fields were open to hostile incursions from the Apennines, and hence early became a source of frequent strife between the Romans and their neighbors. Roman discipline and organization gradually prevailed. In the course of two centuries the Romans found themselves masters of a large part of central Italy. In the collisions that ensued from time to time along the borders, the higher type of civilization always in the end prevailed. Italy was covered with fierce and warlike tribes; and these naturally looked with dread upon the ever widening power of Rome. Combinations against the growing city therefore became common. It is not necessary to assume that Rome was aggressive; but when attacked, she often defended herself by conquering and disarming her assailant. Thus, whether by aggressive or by defensive policy, her frontiers advanced farther and farther away from the center of power. It is the more civilized and the more perfectly organized nation that gains upon and finally absorbs the other. And thus it was by a perfectly natural process that Rome first made herself mistress of Italy and then mistress of the greater part of the known world. But the work was not accomplished in less than about a thousand years.

5. THE FOREIGN ELEMENT AND HOW IT WAS TREATED.-The earliest political organization of Rome seems to have been the result of the political amalgamation of three tribes, the Ramnes, the Tities, and the Luceres. The first gave their name to the people as a whole, as the Angles gave theirs to the united Angles, Jutes, and Saxons who took possession of Britain. By a similar process of transformation the Ramnians came to be called Romans, as the Angles came to be called English. But there is reason to believe that from the very first, there was a foreign element among the Romans. The proof of this is in a very simple fact. Although the institutions were organized in very strict accordance with the family methods above described, yet there were three classes of people in society that were not admitted to this plan of organization. These were the plebs, the clients, and the slaves.

The plebs, or plebeians, could not intermarry with a Roman family, they did not enter the army, they could not hold any political office, they were not members of the senate nor of the comitia curiata. At the