Obrazy na stronie

mbe and the Carpathian Mountains; that in A.D. 68 they surprised Moesia; in 166 carried on war against the Marcomanni, and in 270 were numbered among the enemies over whom Aurelian triumphed. During the first three centuries they occupied the southern parts of Poland, Red Russia, and Kiovia, the very seats possessed by the Russians of the ninth century. Jornandes assigns them the same region; and the anonymous geographer of Ravenna fixes them in Lithuania and the neighbouring countries. These authorities are to us decisive that the Rhoxalani and the Russians are the same people; but, if any doubt remained, it would be removed by the concurrent testimony of the native chronicles, the Polish traditions, the Byzantine historians, and the Icelandic sagas, all of which are unanimous in applying the term Russian to the inhabitants of the countries formerly possessed by the Rhoxalani. Hence, as they were the most celebrated of the original tribes, that term, by synecdoche, became generic. (Foreign Quarterly Review, No. 5, p. 151, scqq.) RhuršN1 or RuthEN1, a people of Gallia Aquitanica, in Narbonensis Prima. The territory was situate on either side of the Tarnis or Tarn. Segodunum, now Rodez, was their chief town. (Caes., B. G., 1, 7.-Plin., 4, 19.) Rhyndicus, a river of Asia Minor, rising in Mount Temnus, on the northern borders of Phrygia. Pliny states, that the Rhyndacus was formerly called Lycus, and took its source in the lake Antynia, near Miletopolis; that it received the Macestus and other rivers, and separated the province of Asia from Bithynia. (Plin., 5,32.) His account, though quite at variance with that of Strabo, is confirmed by other writers, and especially by modern geographers, so that he alone is to be followed. (Cramer's Asia Minor, vol. 1, p. 50.) Rigopijlu M, a town of Gallia Belgica, in the territory of the Treveri, and northeast of Augusta Treverorum. It lay on the river Mosella, and answers to the modern Reol. (Tac., Hist., 4, 71.) Robigo or Robigus, a deity of the Romans, worshipped to avert mildew. The Robigalia were celebrated on the 25th of April, just before the Floralia. (Ovid, Fast., 4, 911. – Pliny, 18, 2.- Tertull, ad Gent., 16, 25.) RöMA, the celebrated capital of Italy and of the Roman empire, situate on the Tiber, below the junction of that river with the Anio. The history of the imperial city is identified with that of the empire itself, and may be found scattered under various heads throughout the present volume. A much more interesting subject of inquiry is that which relates to the authenticity of the earlier Roman history, as it has been handed down to us by the Romans themselves. The researches of modern scholars have here produced the most surprising results, and especially those of the celebrated Niebuhr. In what may be called, however, the work of demolition, even Niebuhr himself appears to have had several predecessors. The sceptical temper of Bayle did not suffer him to acquiesce in a narrative so open to a reasonable incredulity as the early history of Rome. Beaufort's treatise on the “Uncertainty of the Roman History,” though it did not go to the bottom of the matter, was sufficiently convincing to all persons who were not unwilling to be convinced. His views are often false; but his arguments utterly destroyed the credit of the received stories. Hooke endeavoured to refute him; but all that he could make out was a general presumption, that Beaufort pushed his case too far, when he considered the history of the republic down to the destruction of the city by the Gauls as uncertain as the history of the kings. To this modification of Beaufort's conclusions even Niebuhr assents. Ferguson showed the conviction which Beaufort's treatise had worked in his mind, by passing very rapidly over all the period anterior to the second

Punic war, and commencing his more circumstantial narrative of the Roman history only at the point where its events had begun to be noted by contemporary annalists. Bayle and Beaufort were popular writers, and their remarks produced a wide and general effect. At a somewhat earlier period, Perizonius, a scholar of an acute and comprehensive mind, had criticised the Roman History with great freedom and originality in his “Animadrersiones Historica: ;” but the consequence of his outstripping his age was, that his disquisitions remained in obscurity. Bayle and Beaufort take no notice of him; and his inquiries were unknown even to Niebuhr when he published his history (note 678, vol. 1). Perizonius anticipated Niebuhr in his perception of the poetical origin of the history of the early ages of Rome, and pointed out the evidence for the existence among the Romans of popular songs in praise of the heroes of old time. That Niebuhr should have perceived this truth in an age in which scholars are ac: customed to comprehend a wide range of objects and to form independent judgments, is not extraordinary; especially after Wolf's prolegomena to Homer had given birth to a new school of criticism in all that relates to the early literature of nations. But that Perizonius should have discovered it at a time when learned men had scarcely ceased to receive with unques. tioning faith everything that was written in Latin or Greek, gives a high notion of the originality and strength of his conceptions. Niebuhr, therefore, in showing the early history of Rome to be unworthy of credit, has only followed a path already open, or, rath. er, already beaten. He has done more, however, than those who have preceded him, by resolving the vulgar narrative into its elements, and showing how it acquired its present shape. He has thus examined the whole subject thoroughly, and made it impossible for any one ever to revive the old belief. Still, however, though we may now safely withhold our assent from * large portion of what used to pass current as the early history of Rome, we must take care not to carry this scepticism so far as to reject, by one sweeping ser tence of condemnation, every portion that has come down to us on this head. Even allowing a considers' ble degree of doubt and uncertainty to pervade the first records of the Roman history, from the alleged foundation of the city to its capture by the Gauls, or that is a point which Livy himself does not scruple" concede (6, 1), we must yet regard even this dubiou? period as luminous and authenue, when compared with the times which preceded the soundation of Rome. Few sober-minded critics, indeed, will be disposed to indulge in scepticism, so far as to imagine that ever thing which relates to the kings of Rome is fict” and apocryphal. It appears to us that there are coo tain facts recorded in the early history of that co, which rest on too undisputed a basis, too universal a consent of authorities to be easily set aside. Who" these are borne out by the succeeding and indubilato parts of the history, and exhibit a connected accoon" of the growth and progress of the constitution of th: great city, surely it would be injudicious to rejo them, except in the case of evident contradiction of striking improbability. Great uncertainty exists, n° doubt, on many points; but, after all, it is more * matters of detail than of real importance, and espeo" ly in the relation of those petty events and cou" stances with which Livy and Dionysius have, perhaps without due discrimination, endeavoured to dress "P the meager chroniclers who preceded them, and ** fuse some spirit into the dry records of the pool volumes. t us retrench, if it must be so, the gau" decorations and fanciful ornaments with which to historians have embellished their work, but let us * at the same time, overthrow the whole fabrio: "o may prune what is exuberant or decayed, and "

what is rank and unprofitable; but we must bewart, in the process, of encroaching upon what is sound, or rooting out what is wholesome and nutritious. Let it be granted that the rape of the Sabine women is a fiction, it may still be true that the Sabines became, at one time, an element in the population of Rome. Though it be uncertain, with respect to the Horatii and Curiatii, which belonged to Rome and which to Alba, we may still believe that the latter city sank beneath its more powerful rival. The elder Tarquin's reign does not cease to be an historical fact, because we hear an absurd story of an eagle uncovering his head on his arrival at the gates of Rome. The constitution said to have been formed by Servius Tullius may have been the result of longer experience and more practical wisdom than falls to the lot of a single-reign; but it was such a constitution as Rome did receive, and which it was afterward enabled to bring to a state of greater persection than any ancient form of government that we are acquainted with. Suppose the story of Lucretia false, we cannot deny that monarchy was abolished at Rome, and made way for consular authority about the time that Livy pretends, though that historian may be wrong in giving Valerius Publicola, and not Horatius Barbatus, as a colleague to Brutus. (Polyb., 2, 23.) The valour of Horatius Cocles, and the fortitude of Mutius Scaevola, may be left to the admiration of schoolboys; but the siege of Rome by Porsenna is no idle tale invented for their amusement, though it should be proved that the consequences of that event were not so honourable to the Romans as Livy has chosen to represent them. (Tacit., 3, 72.—Plin., 34, 14.) It is a disputed point whether two or five tribunes of the people were elected at first; but does that doubt invalidate the fact of the secession to the Mons Sacer? Cancel three fourths of the Roman victories and triumphs over the AEqui and Volsci, will it be less true that the former were nearly destroyed, the latter completely subjugated 1 Say it was gold, and not the valour of her dictator and his troops, which delivered Rome from the Gauls; she may surely boast of having lived to revenge herself on the barbarian foe, and of having, by a hundred triumphs, blotted out the stain of that transaction, and of the shameful rout on the banks of the Allia. In short, though we may sometimes pause when reading the early annals of Rome, and hesitate what judgment to form on many of the events which they record, there are landmarks enough to prevent us from straying far from our course, and to lead us on safely to the terra firma of her history. But we have not the same assistance for tracing our way, nor the same guarantees to certify us that we are treading in the right path, when we come to explore the truth of the accounts on which the origin of Rome, and the actions of its reputed founder, must mainly depend for their credibility. On the contrary, after reading all that Plutarch has said in the opening of his life of Romulus, and all that Dionysius has collected on the subject, it is impossible not to feel convinced that the re. ceived story of the foundation of Rome rests on very questionable grounds. Here it is not merely the more undisguised appearance of fiction, or the greater frequency of the marvellous, which is calculated to awaken suspicion; but it is the inconsistency and improbability of the whole, as an attempt to explain the first rise and progress of unquestionably the most interesting city of antiquity, which ought to startle the mind and revolt the judgment of the philosopher and the critic. It is not also because these tales are to be oraced to a Greek source that we would reject them; for we are inclined to think that the early Greek his. torians who made the antiquities of Italy their study, and they form a namerous class, were better informed about what they wrote, and more trustworthy, than perhaps they are generally allowed to be. The objection rather lies against the particular authority on whose testimony they seem entirely to rest for support. Dio

cles of Peparethus, an author mentioned by no one else, is said by Plutarch, in his Life of Romulus, to have been the first to accredit the received accounts of the circumstances relative to the origin of Rome; and it was upon his authority that Fabius Pictor, the earliest Roman historian, brought them into repute with his countrymen. Now, unless we are informed what peculiar sources of information were open to this obscure writer, which were not possessed by the other early historians of his nation, to whom the name of Romulus seems to have been known, there can be no reason why we should give him the preference. It will not be enough to say that the approval of Fabius is a sufficient testimony in his favour; for, as his account of the birth of their sounder was most flattering to the vanity of the Romans, their partiality towards him would be easily accounted for, and, by a natural consequence, would tend to lower rather than raise our opinion of his credibility. But the most solid objection which can be urged against the popular account of the foundation of Rome by Romulus, is chief. ly grounded on the inconsistency of the circumstances under which that city is said to have commenced its political career, with the character and condition which is ascribed to it immediately after. If it be true that Romulus was surrounded by so much state and dignity, and possessed not only the insignia of royalty, but also a force such as no despicable city could display, since we are told that he could bring into the field formidable armies, then we may assert confidently that Rome did not date its beginning from a motley assemblage of lawless depredators an runaway slaves, and that its first walls held within their circuit something more than the lowly huts of shepherds, or the rude palace of a village king. Nor were there traditions wanting to give strength to such an hypothesis, by ascribing to this great city an existence anterior to that which it had afterward as a colony of Alba. (Cramer's Anc. Italy, vol. 1, p. 347, seqq). —But let us now proceed to the question respecting the real origin of Rome.

1. Origin of Rome.

When we inquire into the real origin of the city of Rome, we meet with a tradition which carries it back to the age of the Pelasgians. (Plut., Vit. Rom, init.) The Pelasgic origin of Rome is implied in the legend of the settlement of the Arcadian Evander on the Palatine Mount. The religion and the language of Rome sanction this belief. The same opinion was probably held, at least by the earliest of the many writers who, according to Dionysius, supposed it to be a Tyrrhenian city. (Dion. Hal., 1, 29.) If any by this expression meant that it was Etruscan, we may oppose to this the well-grounded opinion that the Etrurian sway was not extended so far south as the lower part of the Tiber till about the close of the second century of Rome. We have, however, express testimony that Rome was a Siculian town. Varro informs us, that the old annals reported that the Siculi were sprung from Rome (L. L., 4, 10); and the legend of Antiochus has been preserved, which derived the appellation of the Siceli in CEnotria and Sicily from a mythic chief Sicelus, who fled from Rome, and was entertained by Morges, king of GEnotria. (Dion. Hal., 1, 73.) It is scarcely necessary to observe, that Sicelus is a personification of the nation, and that we have here a record of its original seat, and of its subsequent migration. The considerations which tend to show that the Siceli or Siculi were a Pelasgian tribe, will be found under another article. , (Vid Siculi.). The Siceli fled from the Opici; and the Pelasgians of Latium were overpowered by the Casci, who were proba; bly an Opican or Oscan tribe. Whether Rome fell into the hands of the conquerors we cannot be certain, but it is very probable. It is thus we #. interpret

- l

the legend preserved by Plutarch, that Romus, king of the Latins, expelled the Tyrrhenians. (Plut., Vit. Rom.) Such a conquest would give rise to the tradition that Rome was founded as a colony from Alba. Palatium, the settlement on the Palatine Hill, probably took its name from Palatium, a town of the Oscan Aborigines, on the declivity of the Apennines. (Dion. Hal., 1, 14.)

2. Original site, and subsequent growth of Rome.

All traditions agree, that the original site of Rome was on the Palatine, whether they ascribe its foundation to Evander or to Romulus. The steepness of the sides of the hill would be its natural defence ; and on one quarter it was still farther strengthened by a swamp which lay between the hill, and river, which was afterward drained and called the Velabrum. In the course of time dwellings sprung up around the foot of the hill; but the Palatine must still have remained the citadel of the growing town; just as at Athens that which was the original city (Tóżts) became eventually the Acropolis (äkpótožtc). These suburbs were enclosed with a line, probably a rude fortification, which the learning of Tacitus enabled him to trace, and which he calls the pomaerium of Romulus. (Ann., 12, 24.) It ran under three sides of the hill: the fourth side was occupied by the swamp just mentioned, where it was neither needful nor possible to carry a wall. The ancient city comprised within this outline, or, possibly, only the city on the summit of the hill, was called by Roman antiquaries the “Square Rome” (Roma Quadrata. Ennius, ap. Fest, s. v. Quadrata Roma. Plut., Wit. Rom. Dio Cass., fragm. Dion. Hal., 1, 88). There is reason to suppose, that some at least of the adjacent hills were the seat of similar settlements. The legend of the twin brothers, Romulus and Remus, appears to have arisen from the proximity to Rome of a kindred town called Remoria, either on the Aventime, or on an eminence somewhat more distant towards the sea. (Dion. Hal., 1, 85–Niebuhr, Rom. Hist., vol. 1, note 618.)—The first enlargement of Rome seems to have been effected by the addition of the Caelian Hill, which, as we shall presently show, was probably occupied by a different tribe from the people of the Palatine. Dionysius speaks of Romulus as holding both the Palatine and the Caelian Mount (2, 50). #. next addition to the city was the Esquiline Hill. The festival of Septimontium preserved the memory of a time when Rome included only Palatium, with its adjacent regions, Velia, Cermalus, and Fagutal; the Calian Hill; and Oppius and Cispius, the two summits of the Esquiline. (Festus, s. v. Septimontium.–Niebuhr, vol. 1, p. 382.) The Capitoline, Quirinal, and Viminal Hills were not yet comprehended in the pomorium: the Aventine was always excluded from the hallowed boundary, even when it was substantially a part of the city. Thus we see that the notion that Rome was built on seven hills, was fitted originally to circumstances different from those to which it was afterward applied.—The Quirinal and Capitoline Hills seem to have been the seat of a Sabine settlement, distinct from the Rome on the Palatine, and in early times even hostile to it. The most poetical incident in the legend of Romulus, the rape of the Sabine virgins, involves an historical meaning. It appears to refer to a time when the Romans did not possess the right of intermarriage with some neighbouring Sabine states, and sought to extort it by force of arms. (Niebuhr, vol. 1, p. 286.) By the right of intermarriage (connubium) is meant the mutual recognition, that he children of parents, citizens of the two states, were entitled to the full rank of citizens in the state of their father. This right among the ancient states of both Greece and Italy was es: tablished only by express treaty. A citizen might live

with a foreign woman as his wife; but, unless the intermarriage were sanctioned by public compact, his children lost their paternal rank. Niebuhr has observed, that even the poetic legend did not regard Rome as a genuine and lawful colony from Alba; otherwise it would, from the very beginning, have enjoyed the right of intermarriage with the mother city and the other Latin towns; and there would have been no consistency in the story of the want of women (vol. 1, note 628). —In the narrative of the war with the Latins, Livy calls Tatius only king of the Sabines ; but when he mentions that, at the close of the war, the Sabine appellation Quintes was extended to the people of Romulus, he derives it from Cures. (Liv., 1, 10, 13.) Dionysius has followed the Annalists, who expressly specified Cures as the seat of the kingdom of Tatius. Strabo adopted the same tradition. Now, when we consider the exceedingly narrow limits within which all the other incidents of the early Roman traditions are confined, and even the historical events of the first years of the republic, after the kingly dominion of the city was reduced, it seems very unlikely that Rome, in its infancy, could have come into collision with Cures, which was distant from it more than twenty miles. Moreover, nothing is told of the war before the seizure of the Capitoline Hill. This is the point from which all the attacks of the Sabines proceed. Again, after the termination of the war, we hear nothing of the return of Tatius to Cures. He apparently deserts his old dominion, and establishes himself-and his Sabines on the Capitoline and Quirinal Hills. (Dion. Hal., 2, 46, 50.) The senate of the people of Romulus and Tatius met in conference in the valley between the Palatine and Capitoline Hills; and as the Palatine was the proper seat of the one, so the Capitoline must have been that of the other. Cures vanishes from our sight; and though the union of the Romans with the Sabine people, with whom they had warred, endured unbroken, there is no trace of their possessing a wider territory than the district immediately adjacent to the hills of Rome.—These considerations are sufficient to expose the inconsistency of the vulgar legend: but the testimony to the incorporation of a part of the Sabines with the Roman people is far too strong to be se! aside. The most probable supposition is, as has been before stated, that the Sabines, who in the early pe. riod of their national existence extended themselves down the left bank of the Tiber, had advanced even to the neighbourhood of Rome, and had established: settlement on the Quirinal and Capitoline Hills.

this town the Capitoline must have been the citado' It was likewise the seat of its religious worship: sor the pontifical books recorded, that, before the building of the Capitol, its site was occupied by shrine: * fanes consecrated by Tatius. (Lit., 1,55), Tatto we can scarcely regard as a more certainly historical personage than Romulus, though the story of his death at Lavinium has an historical aspect. He is only the personification of the tribe of the Titienses or Tilies, who are said to have taken their name from him. But his people had a real existence. The name of their town has been lost : their own name was un" doubtedly Quirites. This people lived in close neighbourhood with the Romans on the Palatine; but to were of different, and even hostile races, and no in" course subsisted between them. Between two Po") states, so situated in immediate neighbourhood, "" not at all improbable that women may have boom,” cause of contention. We can gather from the traditions that war took place between them, which ended at last in a compact, by which not only the right of intermarriage, and a community of all other rights, were granted, but the two nations were combined no one. We can even trace the stages of their union. It appears at first to have been a federal union. Each people had its own king and its own senate; and they only met to confer upon matters of common interest. Afterward one king was acknowledged as the common chief of the united people: the two senates became one body, and consulted for the welfare of the whole state : the national names of Romans and Quirites were extended indifferently to both divisions of the citizens; and they were no longer distinguished as nations, but only as tribes of the same people, under the denomination of Ramnes and Titienses.

3. Early Roman Tribes.

We are told that the people of Rome were divided into three tribes; and, besides the Ramnes and Titienses, a third tribe appears, who are called Luceres. That they were looked upon as an important element in the state, is manifest from the legend that Roma was the daughter of Italus and Luceria. As the distinction of the two former tribes arose from the difference of their national origin, so we may conclude that the Luceres were a people of a third race, and united either by confederacy or subjection with the other two. The origin of the Titienses is distinctly marked: they were Sabines. That of the first tribe, the Ramnes, the genuine Romans of the Palatine, is not so clear ; but it seems probable that they belonged to the Opican stock of the Latins. From these circumstances we might reasonably conjecture that the third tribe, the Luceres, were the remains of a people of the Pelasgian race. They are always enumerated in the third place, as the Ramnes are in the first, which accords well with the idea that they were a conquered and subject class. But there is evidence that points more directly to this conclusion. Though the origin of the Luceres was accounted uncertain by the Roman historians, so that Livy does not venture to assign a cause for their name (Lic., 1, 13), yet it was generally supposed to be derived from the Etruscan Lucumo, who had fought with Romulus against Tatius. (Varro, L. L., 4, 9–Cic., Repub., 2, 8.- Propert., 4, 1, 29.) Now “Lucumo” was only a title mistaken for a proper name, so that nothing could be derived from it, even if the incidents of the legend were received as historical facts. Moreover, the Etruscans, in the infancy of Rome, had not penetrated so far to the south. But the story becomes clear, if we admit that we have here the customary confusion between the Etruscans and Tyrrhenians, and that the allies of the Ramnes of the Palatine were a Tyrrhenian or Pelasgian people, a portion of the old inhabitants of Latium, Dionysius adds a circumstance to the legend which confirms this hypothesis. He says that Lucumo brought his Tyrrhenians from the city Solonium (2, 37). No such city is known to have existed; but the level tract on the seacoast south of the Tiber, lying between Rome on the one hand, and Laurentum and Lavinium on the other, was called the Solonian plain. This region Dionysius probably found mentioned in some annals: this would assuredly be the seat of Pelasgian Latins; and in this very direction we are expressly told that the early dominion of Rome extended most widely. (Niebuhr, vol. 1, note 739.) The Tyrrhenian or Pelasgian origin of the Luceres may be deduced yet more clearly from the legend which described their leader as Lucerus, king of Ardea. (Festus, s. v. Lucerenses.) If we inquire for the town or chief settlement of the Luceres, we shall find reason to conjecture that it was upon the Caelian Hill. We have seen that, according to one tradition, Romulus was supposed to possess the Palatine and the Coelian, while Tatius and his Quirites held the Quirinal and the Capitoline. (Dion. Hal., 2, 50.) As * latter hills were the seat of the second tribe, the Tilienses; and the Palatine of the Ramnes, the first and genuine Romans, it soome reasonable to conclude that the Celian was the site of the third and subject

[blocks in formation]

Among the original population of the city, those who could show a noble or free ancestry constituted the Patrician Order, the term Patricii being equivalent to ingenui (Liv., 10,8.—Cincius, ap. Fest, s. v. Patricios); and to them alone belonged a share in the government of the state. The rest of the people were subject to the king and to the body of the Patricians: and each man, with his household, was attached, under the appellation of Client, to the head of some Patrician family, whom he was bound to serve, and from whom he looked for protection and help. It has already been stated, that after the Sabine war and the union of the people of Romulus and Tatius, the citizens were distributed into three tribes, to which were given the names of Ramnes, Titienses, and Luceres; these three primitive tribes were subdivided into thirty curia, ten in each tribe. In the national assembly the people were called together in their curiæ the votes of the householders in each curia were taken in the separate curia ; and the votes of the greater number of the thirty curiæ determined the business before the assembly. This assembly was called the Comitia Curiata. Besides this popular assembly, there was a select and perpetual council, called the senate. At its first institution it was composed of a hundred chief men of the Patrician order. Ten of these were of higher rank than the rest; and to one, the chief of all, was intrusted the care of the city whenever the king should be absent in war. After the completion of the union with the people of Tatius, the senate was doubled by the addition o hundred Sabines; and the first Tarquinius added a third hundred to the ancient number. The senators admitted by Tarquinius were called “Fathers of the Less Houses or Kins” (Patres Minorum Gentium); and the old senators, “Fathers of the Greater Houses or Kins” (Patres Majorum Gentium). Such is a correct, although imperfect outline of the forms of the primitive constitution.—The leading feature in this outline is the position that the original population of Rome was composed only of the Patrician order and their Clients. Upon this statement all our authorities are agreed, either by express assertion or implied consent. But this statement is generally accompanied by another, arising from a false conception, which has obscured and embarrassed the whole course of early Roman history. The Clients are supposed to have been the same with the Plebeians. They are conceived to have been called Plebeians as a body, in opposition to the Patrician body, but Clients individually, in relation to their particular patrons. Such, at least, is the explicit statement of Dionysius; and of Plutarch, who has followed his authority; and this view of the matter has been adopted without question by modern writers. This, however, is a positive error. The Plebs, or Commonalty, was of more recent origin; and the Plebeians, in their civil rights, held a middle place between the ruling Patricians and their dependant clients. One proof of this, and perhaps the strongest that can be adduced, is drawn from the nature of the Comitia Curiata. This great national council was the most important of all the institutions connected with the ruria. At its first origin, and as long as it continued to have a real existence, it was composed exclusively of the Patrician order. (Dion. Hal., 2, 21.) It cannot be thought strange that the Clients, an inferior order of men, personally dependant on individuals of the Patrician body, should not appear in the supreme council of the state. The great distinction which demands our attention is this, that the Plebeians were still more certainly excluded from it. Even when the Plebeian state had grown up to such magnitude and importance that it had its peculiar magistrates, and was become a chief element in the constitution of the commonwealth, even then the Comitia Curiata were exclusively Patrician, and the Plebeians had no part in them. The fact was, that the distribution of i. people into tribes and curiae, and the still farther division into Gentes, or Houses, had respect only to the original stock of the nation; and this original stock kept itself distinct from the body of new citizens, which was added by conquest, or sprung up insensibly from other causes. The Clients, inasmuch as they were attached to individual Patricians, were attached to the Gentes; and so may be considered, in this sense, as included in the greater divisions of curiae and tribes; although it is manifest that they could not appear as members of the curiæ, when these were called together as the component arts of the sovereign popular assembly. . But the

lebeians grew up as a separate body by the side of the original Patrician citizens, and were never incorporated in their peculiar divisions. They were not members of the Gentes, or of the curia, or of the three tribes; consequently they had no share in the Comitia Curiata; and this assembly, in which resided the supreme power of the state, was, as we have already said, exclusively Patrician. It is needless to insist upon the importance of this distinction to a right view of the constitution, and of its successive changes; and, indeed, to a right notion of the whole internal history, which, for more than two centuries, is made up of the struggles of the Patrician and Plebeian orders. Yet this distinction was overlooked by all the writers on Roman history; and they suffered themselves to be misled by the superficial theory of Dionysius, who represented the government of Rome as thoroughly democratical from the very foundation of the city, and conceived the public assembly to be composed of the whole male population of the state, with the exception of household slaves.

5. Of the Patrician Gentes or Houses.

The Patrician citizens of Rome were all comprehended in certain bodies which were called Gentes (Kins or Houses). The word Kin would be the most exact translation of Gens; but as this word is nearly obsolete, except in particular phrases, and as the translators of Niebuhr have rendered Gens by House, the latter term is now generally adopted. (Philol. Museum, No 2, p. 348.) The members of the same Gens were called Gentiles. In each house were contained several distinct families. It is probable that these families were originally single households ; but where their numbers increased, they became families in the wider acceptation of the term. From the etymology of the term Gens, it is evident that a connexion by birth and kindred was held to subsist among all the members of the same house. The name of the house seems always to have been derived from some mythic hero; and in the popular belief, the hero from whom the house was named was regarded as a common ancestor. Thus the Julian house was regarded as the progeny of Julus, the son of AEneas (Dion. Hal., 1, 70. —Virg., AEn., 6, 789); and the Valerian house was derived from Wolesus, a Sabine warrior, and companion of Tatius. (Dion. Hal., 2, 46.) Even those whose superior information enabled them to reject these fabulous genealogies, adhered to the notion of an original connexion by birth; and a fictitious and conventional kindred was acknowledged by the members of the same house. In describing this kindred of the Gentites as fictitious and conventional, we do


not mean to assert that in no case did such a connexion really exist. No doubt what were called Houses were first formed by natural consanguinity. But it is probable that these natural alliances had sug. gested an artificial arrangement, and that families not akin to one another had been distributed into houses by some legislative power. This will appear certain, if we shall be convinced of the existence of the precise numerical divisions which will be explained presently. If it be true that originally each curia contained ten gentes, and each gens ten householders, it is obvious that this exact division must have been made arbitrarily. A precisely similar division exisited among the ancient Athenians. The Eupatridae, a body which corresponds to the Patrician order at Rome, were divided into four Phylae, which correspond to the three Roman tribes; each Phylae into three Phratriz, which correspond to the Curiae; and each Phratria into thir. ty Genea or Houses; so that the total number of Houses was three hundred and sixty. The Athenian Houses were distinguished by names of a patronymic form, which were derived from some hero or mythic ancestor. But, notwithstanding this fictitious kindred, and though all the terms which expressed the relation were derived etymologically from the notion of connexion by birth, the authorities from which we draw our precise knowledge of the institution directly and pointedly deny the reality of such a connexion, and ascribe the origin of the Genea to an arbitrary di. vision. (Pollux, 8, 9, 111. —Harpocration, s. v. Yo: vitat.—Niebuhr, vol. 1, note 795.) The great bond of union among the members of a House was a partici. pation in its common religious rites. It seems that each House had its peculiar solemnities, which were performed at a stated time and place. There can be no doubt that, at a fitting age, the children of the Gens were admitted to these solemnities, and publicly recognised as members of it; just as in Attica, at the feast of Apaturia, Athenian citizens of the pure blood were admitted and registered in their hereditary Phra. tria.—We have spoken of the Gentes as pertaining only to the Patricians. This is affirmed upon direct testimony. (Liv., 10, 8.-Niebuhr, vol. 1, p. 316, note 821.) . But, in making this statement, we must bear in mind that constructions of a similar nature existed among the Plebeians, which had their origin when the subject and municipal towns were independent states. The Gentile connexions of the Plebeians were older than their character as Roman citizens. Thus, the Caecilii, though Plebeians at Rome, were Patricians of Praeneste, and claimed as the ancestor of their house Caeculus, the son of Vulcan. The distinction between the Patrician and Plebeian Houses was, in the first place, that every Patrician was a member of a House, while, among the Plebeians, comparatively but few families could claim the honours of hereditary nobility ; and, in the second place, that the Patrician Houses were constituent elements of the Roman state, Their existence affected the constitution of the great councils of the nation, the Comitia Curiata and the senate, and their internal laws and usages were part of the common law of the Roman people; while of the Plebeian Houses the state took no cognizanceThe nature of the Roman Gentes may be illustrated in some points by the analogy of the Gaelic clans. All who belonged to the Gens or to the Chan bore a coinmon name. But as the clan contained not only the freemen or gentlemen of the clan, the Duinherasulo, who were the companions of the chief and the warrio ors of the clan, but also their dependants, to whom was left their scanty tillage and the keeping of the cattle, and who, if ever they were called to follow the warlike array of the clan, were imperfectly armed, a

placed in the hindmost ranks; so the Roman Gen” consisted of the steelvin raticans and of their Chonto, And our theory, that, notwithstanding the conventious

[ocr errors]
« PoprzedniaDalej »