did. Every aspirant for an important magistracy must have reached

a specified age and must have held all the lower offices. These provisions prevented a successful politician from being carried into the consulship on a sudden wave of popular favor, and a consul’s term of office was so short that he had little opportunity to make his political position secure. Over against him stood the senate with its _esprit de corps_, and its power to control appointments and to ratify or reject treaties, which, as we noticed in the last chapter, enabled it to determine in large measure his domestic and foreign policy. The Roman Senate protected itself for many decades against the political aspirations of successful generals by granting them or withholding from them a sufficient army, by voting them generous or niggardly appropriations, by requiring them to submit all their acts to it for ratification, and by conceding to them or refusing them a triumph or a “thanksgiving” on their return to Rome. Its power was only broken in the last century of the Republic when certain democratic magistrates made an appeal directly to the popular assembly. To this move on the part of the Executive we have had an analogue on several occasions when the Chief Executive of the United States or of a state has made a popular appeal to the voters in his struggle with a legislative body.[33]

4. THE RECALL

One of the political problems with which we have been much concerned in late years has to do with the possibility of removing an elected official from office. We proceed to the accomplishment of that purpose in two ways, by the traditional method of impeachment or by the new device of the recall. They differ in the fact that the former is a judicial procedure, whereas a recall is brought about by the direct action of the voters. The Romans were a practical people and did not like to interfere with the orderly transaction of public business by removing an executive from office. Consequently we have no record of any attempt being made to remove a civil magistrate from office until we come to the stormy period of the second century before our era. In 169 B.C. one of the censors of that year was impeached and tried before the popular assembly, and in 133 B.C. the tribune Tiberius Gracchus secured the recall of his colleague Octavius by a popular vote. Both cases illustrate the application of the Roman doctrine of popular sovereignty in its extreme form. Neither method of procedure, however, found favor in later years. In fact the Romans did not have so much need of either process as we have today, because the tribune could veto an arbitrary or unscrupulous act of a magistrate.

5. PENSIONS, BONUSES, AND MILITARISM

One of the important political and economic questions which countries have to settle in modern times at the close of a war is that of reinstating soldiers in civil pursuits and of granting them some material compensation for their services. After the Civil War in this country the question was solved by throwing open lands in the Middle West to settlement and by appropriating money liberally for pensions. At the moment of writing the needs of the soldier returning to civil life from the late war with the Central European powers have been met in part by a system of insurance, by the payment of a small sum on discharge, and by making provision for the disabled. It has been further proposed to compensate men honorably discharged from service by giving them either cash payments or homestead allotments. All of these plans were tried by the Romans. Down to the close of the second century before our era only the well-to-do were enrolled in the legions. Marius for the first time opened the ranks to the proletariat. When the term of service of his soldiers came to an end he had to make suitable provision for them. He did so by founding a colony and granting them allotments in it. This precedent was followed by Sulla, Pompey, and Caesar, and between 59 and 31 B.C. twenty-five or thirty colonies of veterans were thus established. Under the Empire a soldier received also a fixed sum of money on his discharge. The benefit societies which the Roman government encouraged among the soldiers served somewhat the same purpose as our system of war-insurance. The bonus system was adopted, in a formal way, for the first time by Augustus in 7 B.C., instead of the customary assignments of land. At that time he gave gratuities to his discharged soldiers amounting to 400,000,000 sesterces, as he tells us in his biography.[34] Although this is perhaps the earliest instance of the systematic award of a large cash payment, occasional grants of this sort occurred much earlier, because the bonus had its beginning in the division of the spoils of war among the soldiers, and was given at the time of the triumph. When the practice of granting a bonus had once been formally established, the occasions on which it was given were multiplied for political reasons. To win popularity with the army, Tiberius, on his accession, made a grant of money to every soldier, and his example was followed by Caligula, Claudius, Nero, and most of their successors. In the later empire, when the support of the army became all-important to an emperor, bonuses increased in size; they were given on many anniversaries, and imposed a very heavy burden on the imperial treasury. In the fourth century the Emperor Julian, who was far from warlike, on mounting the throne, gave to every Roman soldier a bonus whose nominal value was equal to about thirty-two dollars. Since there were probably 400,000 soldiers in the army, this action cost the government $12,800,000 or nearly $50,000,000 if we roughly estimate that gold and silver would purchase four times as much then as they do now. The militaristic spirit of Rome has descended to us and makes its influence felt today. The campaigns and the conquests of great Roman commanders have been studied with minute care by generals and statesmen in modern times. Elaborate studies, for instance, have been made of Caesar’s campaigns by Napoleon III, by Col. Stoffel of his staff, and in General von Göler’s great work dedicated to Marshall von Moltke with the noteworthy phrase: “Feldherr und Sieger auf gallischem Boden.” Elsewhere, in a paper on the trend of classical history, I noted the fact that the study of Roman military history had been engaging the attention of an unusually large number of scholars in the years immediately preceding the war with the states of Central Europe. It was also a significant thing that many of these writers in their appraisal of the men and the events of ancient times tacitly held to the principle that in the ultimate analysis the course of history was determined by the use of naked force, and that the progress of the world was furthered by the conquest of the small nation by the great one.

6. CASES OF PATERNALISM

In one of the preceding chapters we have tried to show how the Romans in the second century before our era attempted to check the decline of morals and the growth of extravagance by giving the censor extraordinary discretionary power over the daily life of the citizens. It may be interesting in this connection to say a word of three or four other cases of paternalism, in which the state interfered in private life or business in the hope of correcting some widespread evil or social disorder. All of these social evils which Rome tried to remedy have their analogues in our own times. The most outstanding of these problems was unemployment and lack of food in the large cities. This was the problem which Gaius Gracchus tried to solve by his corn law in 123 B.C. Our best estimates put the population of Rome at 800,000 in the early Empire.[35] Perhaps it numbered a half million in the time of the Gracchi. Italy, after supplying her own needs, was unable to provide all these people with sufficient food, or with food at prices within the reach of the poor. In times of great scarcity previous governments had tried to meet the difficulty by bringing grain to Rome from Sicily and Sardinia. The motives which actuated them were not primarily humanitarian. But a hungry proletariat would have threatened the existence of society and government. Gaius Gracchus tried to do in a systematic way what some of his predecessors had attempted in an irregular fashion. He organized the purchase and transportation of grain from the provinces and provided for its sale at about half the market price. He may have thought of this measure as a temporary palliative to meet an emergency. He may have hoped later to do away with unemployment, by developing the industries of Rome and settling the needy in colonies. He may have expected to stimulate agriculture in Italy and in that way to bring down the price of food. But the immediate result was the recognition by the state of its duty to provide food for the city, and to adjust the price of the necessities of life to the purse of the consumer. Within seventy-five years after the tribunate of Gracchus we hear of four or five new corn laws, each one increasing the amount of grain supplied by the government or lowering its price. The democratic leader, Clodius, in 58 B.C. even supplied grain free to the needy. Suetonius tells us that Caesar introduced a partial reform by cutting down the number of people who received cheap or free grain from 320,000 to 150,000. This essay in the fixing of prices by the government which Gracchus made in 123 B.C. was carried to its logical conclusion by Diocletian in his famous edict in 301 A.D. In another place the present writer has made a study of this decree, which was found in Asia Minor some two centuries ago engraved on tablets.[36] It is sufficient to note here that in this document the Emperor fixed the maximum prices which it was lawful to charge for seven hundred or eight hundred different articles comprising food, clothing, shoes, and labor of all kinds. The penalty for selling an article at a higher price than that specified in the law was death. The attempt to enforce the law led to riot and disorder and its ultimate repeal.

It will be noticed that in his edict Diocletian tried to fix wages, not minimum, but maximum wages. The later empire was much concerned with the labor-question. It believed that the prosperity of the people required a proper diversification of industry, that each community should have a sufficient number of carpenters, weavers, and farmers, for instance. This end could be attained most easily by making an occupation hereditary in a family. When this point had been reached the caste system was fixed on Roman society. This final result may be seen in the _Theodosian Code_ of the fifth century, but we cannot follow all the steps by which it was reached. Apparently the state accomplished its purpose by means of the trade-guilds. Hundreds of inscriptions testify to the existence of these organizations in various parts of the Empire. Just as the central government made the _curia_, or local senate, responsible for the taxes of the municipality which it represented, so it held the guilds of carpenters or of weavers responsible for the services which they were qualified to render to the community. This obligation was first laid on the guilds of the skippers and bakers. If they allowed their trades to languish, Rome, Alexandria, and Constantinople would starve. Their occupations were the “basic industries” of antiquity. The man who was a baker or a seaman was therefore obliged to continue as a baker or seaman his life long, and his children were obliged to follow his footsteps. Gradually other trades were swept into the government’s net, until freedom in industry and commerce had disappeared.

Even before the state had brought the laborer under its control, it had acquired the ownership of a great part of the natural resources of the Empire. The Emperor owned gold mines in Dalmatia and Dacia, silver mines in Pannonia, iron mines in Noricum, tin mines in Britain, and marble quarries, forests, clay-pits, and salt-works in other provinces. Egypt was from the outset the personal domain of the Emperor, and by confiscation or legacy he gradually acquired immense estates in most of the richer provinces. Most of the mines and the imperial estates were in charge of a procurator, and were let out at a fixed rental to contractors. The work on the estates was done by tenants. Whether state ownership promoted productivity or not we can not say with certainty, but the complaints which we find in the _Theodosian Code_[37] of the exorbitant prices charged for the products of the mines and quarries would seem to show that they were inefficiently managed under the later empire. The outcome, so far as the workers in the mines and the tenants on the estates are concerned, is clear enough. Titles are found in the _Theodosian Code_,[38] requiring those who live near the mines and their children to work in the mines. The condition of the tenants on imperial estates had fallen to a low point as early as the latter part of the second century, as we can see from the pathetic petition which the people on an imperial estate in Africa addressed to Commodus. In time the tenants on these estates found it impossible to give up their leases, or were forbidden to do so, and became serfs.

In this field of paternalism of which we have been speaking another important issue of modern times has its counterpart in the history of Roman politics. I mean the attitude of the central government toward the municipalities within its territory. Within recent years this question has taken an acute form in the states of New York, Pennsylvania, and Illinois. To what extent may the legislature or the governor interfere to correct local evils in the city of New York, in Pittsburgh, or in Chicago? The Romans under the Republic were not much concerned with the welfare of the cities under their control. With the establishment of the Empire a change in their attitude is noticeable. The improvement in the general administration of the provinces naturally brought into relief certain evils in the local governments of provincial cities, especially financial mismanagement. The letters which Pliny, the governor of Bithynia, wrote to Trajan in the early part of the second century are very illuminating in this respect. He asks his imperial master what shall be done at Nicaea, where 10,000,000 sesterces have been spent on an unfinished theatre whose walls have already begun to crack.[39] May he inspect the accounts of the city of Apamea? Is it proper for him to check the extravagance shown at civic festivals? Out of these comparatively small beginnings there developed the imperial policy of supervising the finances of the municipalities of the Empire, and curators were sent out to them, who took entire charge of all the land and other property belonging to a city, and were responsible not to the citizens of the town, but to the governor of the province. The exercise by the curator of these large powers encroached on the authority of the local officials, lessened the feeling of civic responsibility among the people, and in the end completely undermined local self-government. If we make a possible exception of the censorship of morals in the second century before our era, all the experiments in paternalism which the Romans made failed:--the fixing of prices, the control of the labor market, state ownership, and the supervision of local government.

7. GROWTH OF CITIES

The drifting of large numbers of people into the great cities was one of the baffling problems of antiquity, as it is today. It meant the withdrawal of farmers and farm-laborers needed on the land. It led to unemployment in the cities. It brought so many people into the cities that it was difficult to supply them with sufficient food. It made the cities in times of economic distress or political excitement dangerous centres of disorder. To discuss here all the reasons why Rome and certain other cities grew to their unwieldy size would take us too far afield. We may mention, however, one or two of the influences at work. Many of the native farm laborers had been killed in the long wars. Many of the farmers had suffered the same fate, and their farms had passed into the hands of large landowners and were cultivated by slaves. The remaining peasant proprietors could not compete with the ranch owners, and the free laborers could not hold their own against the slaves. People from both these classes went into the provinces or moved to the city in the early period, while under the late republic and the empire the size of the city was augmented by a great influx of slaves, who found it a comparatively easy matter to purchase their freedom or to obtain it in the wills of their masters. To feed these people and keep them reasonably contented the government gave them food free or at a low price and provided them with baths, theatres, and gladiatorial contests. This attempt to relieve the situation only aggravated the evil. The attractions which the government added to city life by its action kept former residents in Rome and drew others to the city.

Closely related to this question of the alarming growth of the larger cities was the displacement of the native stock in Rome and Italy by people from abroad. We have already noticed that nearly ninety per cent. of the permanent residents of Rome under the Empire were of foreign extraction. Rome was therefore facing the same situation which disturbs us. It is true that most of the foreigners living in Italy were slaves or the descendants of slaves, as is the case with the negroes in this country. It was an instance of forced rather than of voluntary immigration, but the resultant change in the character of the population is the same in both cases. Not only was the city of Rome dominated by foreigners, but at Beneventum, and Milan, and throughout the country districts of Italy the same condition prevailed. In still another respect the change in the character of the population of Italy reminds us of a corresponding change in our own population. Fifty years ago most of our immigrants came from western Europe. That tide of immigration has decreased and we regard with some alarm the arrival at our ports now of large numbers of people from eastern and southeastern Europe. They come from countries whose languages, and political and social ideas are very different from ours. They do not readily accept our traditions and institutions. This was exactly the situation in Italy under the Empire. By very interesting studies which Professor Frank[40] and others have made of the names found on tombstones and in the records of trade-guilds it appears that “the whole of Italy as well as the Romanized portions of Gaul and Spain were during the Empire dominated in blood by the East.” The result was disastrous to Roman traditions and to Roman political life. In Professor Frank’s opinion, the fact that, even as early as the time of the Gracchi, “reform through orderly compromise gave way to revolution through bloodshed is largely due to the displacement of real Italic peoples by men of Oriental, Punic and Iberian stock.” At all events the presence of this large Oriental element in the population of the West helps us to understand the comparative willingness with which Rome accepted the principate in place of the republic. It helps us to understand the development of autocracy, the gradual adoption of Oriental titles and ceremonial at court, and the partial acceptance by the people of the Oriental theory of the Emperor’s power.

IV. SOME FINAL REFLECTIONS

“The history of all institutions has a deep value and an abiding interest to all those who have the courage to work upon it. It presents in every branch a regularly developed series of causes and consequences, and abounds in examples of that continuity of life, the realization of which is necessary to give the reader a personal hold on the past and a right judgment of the present. For the roots of the present lie deep in the past; and nothing in the past is dead to the man who would learn how the present comes to be what it is.” So Stubbs wrote on finishing his history of the _English Constitution_ and on sending it out to the public. What he has said when thinking of the beginnings of constitutional government in England is true in a higher degree of the relations of modern political institutions to those of Rome. This is the case partly because we owe to Rome so much of our political philosophy and so much of our political system. It is true partly because our indebtedness to Rome in the field of politics has not been appreciated, and consequently we have failed to understand the origin and nature of many of our institutions. The failure to recognize the great debt which we owe to her was a natural oversight. The great gulf of the Middle Ages lies between Roman times and our own day. Until the trend of political thought and the development of society during that period came to be better understood, the close relation which medieval political theory and practice bore to that of the Romans and our dependence on the medieval were not seen. Until very recently students of modern political institutions rarely carried their investigations beyond the limits of their respective countries, or at the most they did not go back beyond the Renaissance. But as the Carlyles have said in their _History of Mediaeval Political Theory_: “From the lawyers of the second century to the theorists of the French Revolution, the history of political thought is continuous, changing in form, modified in content, but still the same in its fundamental conceptions.” Many writers on political science in ignorance or in disregard of this continuity tell us, for instance, that the representative principle was unknown in antiquity, or that the jury system was of English or Scandinavian origin. But fortunately a few scholars, like Bryce, who have an acquaintance with classical institutions, are gradually correcting these errors and helping us to see the way in which many of our modern political theories and institutions have come to us from Rome.

Our political indebtedness to the Romans takes two different forms. We have inherited many theories and institutions from them, and in the second place we have before us for our guidance their experience in dealing with difficult practical problems. As we have noticed in the preceding chapters, they have taught us to study actual governmental systems rather than to attempt the construction of Utopias. We owe to them the fruitful suggestion that the state may be compared to an organism. The conception of the brotherhood of man goes back to the early Empire, and out of this conception international law, and its counterpart, civil law, have developed. Roman writers recognized the three forms of government, monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, and pointed out the importance of dividing the functions of government between the legislative, executive and judicial branches. From them we have derived our accepted doctrine of popular sovereignty, and to them the theory of the divine right of kings may be traced. The Romans developed the distinction which is so vital in English common law between statutes and customs, officially recognized, and showed the great advantages inherent in a flexible constitution which is made up of these two elements. They have handed down to us the representative principle, the jury method of trial, civil law, a clear conception of the rights of a citizen, a jealous regard for law and tradition, a comprehensive system of political checks and balances, model systems of local government and civil service, and methods of governing, civilizing, and unifying alien peoples which have never been equalled.

It was this final contribution that Rome made to civilization of which Mommsen was thinking, toward the end of his long study of Roman history and institutions, when he wrote: “If an angel of the Lord were to strike the balance whether the domain ruled by Severus Antoninus was governed with the greater intelligence and the greater humanity at that time or in the present day, whether civilization and national prosperity generally have since that time advanced or retrograded, it is very doubtful whether the decision would prove to be in favor of the present.”

NOTES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

NOTES

[1] The arrangements which Rome made with the several cities of Sicily are outlined by Cicero in his oration _In Verrem_, III. 12-14.

[2] The traditional story of the Decemvirate and its codification of the _Laws of the Twelve Tables_ is told graphically by Livy, III. 32-54. Some of the extant fragments of these laws may be seen in F. D. Allen’s _Remnants of Early Latin_, Boston, 1899, pp. 84-92.

[3] On the activities of the censors, cf. Heitland, _The Roman Republic_, _passim_.

[4] On the government of the provinces under the Republic one may read Arnold-Shuckburgh, C. III.

[5] There is an interesting discussion of the motives and policy of C. Gracchus by W. W. Fowler in his _Roman Essays and Interpretations_, Oxford, 1920, pp. 99-110.

[6] A brilliant analysis of the political policies of Pompey and Caesar may be found in E. Meyer’s _Caesars Monarchie und das Principat des Pompejus_, Stuttgart, 1919.

[7] On the legal basis of the principate of Augustus, see Abbott, _Roman Political Institutions_, pp. 267-273.

[8] For the provinces under Augustus, see Arnold-Shuckburgh, chapter IV. For a list of them, cf. Sandys, pp. 401 ff.

[9] Five municipal charters are given in an English translation by E. G. Hardy in his _Six Roman Laws and Three Spanish Charters_, Oxford, 1911-12.

[10] The famous edict of Caracalla, to which reference is made in the _Code_ of Justinian and elsewhere, may now be seen in no. 40 of the _Griechische Papyri im Museum des Oberhessischen Geschichtsverein zu Giessen_, E. Kornemann and P. M. Meyer, Leipzig, 1910.

[11] For the bureaux of Hadrian and his successors, see Hirschfeld.

[12] The most convenient edition of the _Code_ of Justinian is to be found in the _Corpus Iuris Civilis_, 3 vols., ed. by Mommsen and others. Berlin, 1895.

[13] The Latin text of the constitution of Vespasian may be found in K. E. Bruns, _Fontes Iuris Romani Antiqui_, Leipzig, 1893,^7 no. 56.

[14] Cf. F. F. Abbott, on “The Referendum and the Recall Among the Ancient Romans,” in _The Sewanee Review_, XXIII. 84-94 (1915).

[15] For Professor Frank’s discussion of these wars, see chapters V, VI, and XIII. Cf., also, Livy, XXI. 4. 1.

[16] For the comparison of the Roman Senate and the Senate of the U. S. see the chapter on “The Story of Two Oligarchies.”

[17] For a fuller discussion of representative government among the Romans under the Republic, see Frank’s _Roman Imperialism_, pp. 45, 209, 299, 301.

[18] The oath of the Fascisti may be found in the _London Times_ of Jan. 2, 1923. The best literature at present on the movement is _Discorsi Politici_, Benito Mussolini (Milan; _Essercizio Tipografico del “Popolo d’Italia,”_ 1922). _Il Fascismo nella Vita Italiana_, Pietro Gorgolini. Preface by B. Mussolini (Turin; Anonima Libraria Italiana). _Fascismo Liberatore_, Cipriano Giachetti (Florence; Bemporad).

[19] For the praetor’s court see Abbott, _Roman Political Institutions_, pp. 105 ff.

[20] A striking illustration of the looseness of procedure in Roman courts is given by Cicero in a letter to Atticus (_ad Atticum_, I. 16. 3-6), translated by E. O. Winstedt, _Letters to Atticus_, 3 vols., New York, 1919, in _The Loeb Classical Library_. On the course of a trial in a Roman court, cf. A. H. J. Greenidge, _The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time_, Oxford, 1901, pp. 456-504.

[21] On taxation in the provinces, see Arnold-Shuckburgh, chapter VI. On the customs duties, see R. L. V. Cagnat, _Étude Historique sur les Impôts Indirects chez les Romains_, Paris, 1882.

[22] On Diocletian’s tax system, see Pauly-Wissowa-Kroll, III. 1513 ff.; Daremberg-Saglio, V. 434 ff.

[23] “Rome’s First Coinage,” in _Classical Philology_, XIV. 314-327 (1919).

[24] On life in the provinces see Bouchier’s books cited in the Bibliography.

[25] The road-systems in the provinces may be seen in Murray’s _Small Classical Atlas_, or in H. S. Jones’ _Companion to Roman History_, Oxford, 1912, map 4.

[26] See Reid, pp. 279 ff.

[27] See Chapters I and II in the _Common People of Ancient Rome_.

[28] A detailed account of the method of founding Colonies and a list of them may be found in Pauly-Wissowa-Kroll, IV. 510 ff.

[29] For an account of the Idaho Colony, see Albert Shaw, “From New York to Idaho,” in _The American Review of Reviews_, LXIV. 177-182 (1921).

[30] See the chapter on trade-guilds and corporations in Abbott’s _Common People of Ancient Rome_.

[30a] This statement does not apply to Asia Minor where we do know of industrial strikes in Roman times at Ephesus, Pergamum, Miletus, and Sardis. That of the bakers at Ephesus (Kern, _Die Inschriften von Magnesia_, no. 114, an inscription which we now know is from Ephesus) took place in the second century A.D. The other strikes are those of builders, one in the second century A.D. at Miletus on the Roman theatre (_Sitz. Berl. Ak._ 1904, p. 83); for Pergamum, cf. _Athen. Mitt._ XXIV, 1899, p. 199 (also second cent.); for Sardis _C.I.G._ 3647. An article by W. H. Buckler on _Labor Disputes in the Province of Asia_ which will soon appear in _Anatolian Studies in Honor of Sir W. M. Ramsay_, Manchester, 1923, discusses this question. [D. M. R.]

[31] On the failure of “big business” to determine the policy of the Roman state, see Frank’s _Roman Imperialism_. For a different view, cf. Ferrero.

[32] “Race Mixture In The Roman Empire,” in _The American Historical Review_, XXI. 689-708 (1916).

[33] Among the executives who have appealed directly to the voters may be mentioned Governor Hughes of New York State and Presidents Roosevelt and Wilson.

[34] Augustus mentions his gratuities to soldiers in chapter 17 of his _Res Gestae Divi Augusti_; translated into English, _The Deeds of Augustus_, by W. Fairley, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 1898.

[35] On methods of calculating the population of the city of Rome, see J. Beloch’s _Bevölkerung der griechisch-römischen Welt_, Leipzig, 1886, chapter IX. sec. 2 and “Die Bevölkerung Italiens im Altertum,” in _Klio_, III. 471-490 (1903).

[36] On Diocletian’s edict see the chapter on “Diocletian’s Edict and the High Cost of Living” in Abbott’s _Common People of Ancient Rome_.

[37] See the _Theodosian Code_, (_Theodosiani Libri XVI_ ed. Th. Mommsen, Berlin, 1905), 10, 19, 1. 2. 8.

[38] On compulsion to work in the mines, see the _Theodosian Code_, 10, 19, 5. 6. 7. and 15.

[39] For Pliny’s inquiries see the _Epistulae ad Traianum_, 39; cf. 31 on work in the mines.

[40] For the influx into Italy and the West of men of Oriental extraction see T. Frank, in _The American Historical Review_, XXI. 689-708 (1916) and Frank’s _Economic History of Rome_, pp. 154 ff. _et passim_.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. GENERAL HISTORIES OF ROME

BOAK, A. E. R., _A History of Rome to 565 A.D._ New York, 1921.

FERRERO, G., _The Greatness and Decline of Rome_. 5 vols. New York, 1909.

FOWLER, W. WARDE, _Rome_ (Home University Library). London, 1912.

FRANK, T., _Roman Imperialism_. New York, 1914.

FRANK, T., _A History of Rome_. New York, 1923.

GIBBON, EDWARD, _The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_ (Edition of J. B. Bury). 7 vols. London, 1896-1900.

HEITLAND, W. E., _The Roman Republic_. 3 vols. Cambridge, England, 1909.

MOMMSEN, TH., _The History of Rome_ (Translated by W. P. Dickson), 5 vols. New York, 1895.

PELHAM, H. F., _Outlines of Roman History_. New York, 1905.^4

JONES, H. STUART, _The Roman Empire, B.C. 29-A.D. 476_ (The Story of the Nations). New York, 1908.

SCHILLER, H., _Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit_. 2 vols. Gotha, 1883.

II. THE PROVINCES AND MUNICIPALITIES

ARNOLD, W. T., SHUCKBURGH, E. S., _The Roman System of Provincial Administration_. Oxford and New York, 1914.

LIEBENAM, W., _Städteverwaltung im römischen Kaiserreiche_. Leipzig, 1900.

MARQUARDT, J., _Römische Staatsverwaltung_, vol. I. Leipzig, 1881.

MOMMSEN, TH., _The Provinces of the Roman Empire from Caesar to Diocletian_ (Translation by W. P. Dickson). 2 vols. New York, 1909.

REID, J. S., _The Municipalities of the Roman Empire_. Cambridge, England, 1913.

III. POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS

ABBOTT, F. F., _A History and Description of Roman Political Institutions_. Boston, 1911.^3

BOTSFORD, G. W., _The Roman Assemblies_. New York, 1909.

HIRSCHFIELD, O., _Die kaiserlichen Verwaltungsbeamten bis auf Diocletian_. Berlin, 1905.^2

MOMMSEN, TH., _Römisches Staatsrecht_. 3 vols. Leipzig, 1887.

WILLEMS, P., _Le Droit Public Romain_. Louvain, 1888.^6

WILLEMS, P., _Le Sénat de la République Romaine_. 3 vols. Louvain, 1883.

WILLOUGHBY, W. W., _The Political Theories of the Ancient World_. New York, 1903.

IV. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC LIFE

ABBOTT, F. F., _Society and Politics in Ancient Rome_. New York, 1909.

ABBOTT, F. F., _The Common People of Ancient Rome_. New York, 1911.

BOUCHIER, E. S., _Life and Letters in Roman Africa_. Oxford, 1913.

BOUCHIER, E. S., _Spain under the Roman Empire_. Oxford, 1914.

BOUCHIER, E. S., _Syria as a Roman Province_. Oxford, 1916.

BOUCHIER, E. S., _Sardinia in Ancient Times_. Oxford, 1917.

DILL, S., _Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius_. New York, 1905.

FOWLER, W. W., _Social Life at Rome in the Age of Cicero_. New York, 1909.

FRANK, T., _An Economic History of Rome_. Baltimore, 1920.

FRIEDLÄNDER, L., _Roman Life and Manners under the Early Empire_ (Translation by Freese and Magnus). 4 vols. London and New York, 1908-1913.

V. GENERAL HANDBOOKS

DAREMBERG, CHARLES, ET SAGLIO, M. E., _Dictionnaire des Antiquités Grecques et Romaines_. 5 vols. Paris, 1875-1919.

JONES, H. STUART, _Companion to Roman History_. Oxford, 1912.

LÜBKER, F., _Reallexikon des klassischen Altertums_. Leipzig, 1914.^8

PAULY, A. F. VON, WISSOWA, GEORG, KROLL, W., _Real-Encyclopaedie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft_. 11 vols. (incomplete). Stuttgart, 1894-1922.

SANDYS, J. E., _A Companion to Latin Studies_. Cambridge, England, 1921.^3

Our Debt to Greece and Rome

AUTHORS AND TITLES

1. HOMER. John A. Scott, _Northwestern University_.

2. SAPPHO. David M. Robinson, _The Johns Hopkins University_.

3A. EURIPIDES. F. L. Lucas, _King’s College, Cambridge_.

3B. AESCHYLUS AND SOPHOCLES. J. T. Sheppard, _King’s College, Cambridge_.

4. ARISTOPHANES. Louis E. Lord, _Oberlin College_.

5. DEMOSTHENES. Charles D. Adams, _Dartmouth College_.

6. ARISTOTLE’S POETICS. Lane Cooper, _Cornell University_.

7. GREEK HISTORIANS. Alfred E. Zimmern, _University of Wales_.

8. LUCIAN. Francis G. Allinson, _Brown University_.

9 PLAUTUS AND TERENCE. Charles Knapp, _Barnard College_, _Columbia University_.

10A. CICERO. John C. Rolfe, _University of Pennsylvania_.

10B. CICERO AS PHILOSOPHER. Nelson G. McCrea, _Columbia University_.

11. CATULLUS. Karl P. Harrington, _Wesleyan University_.

12. LUCRETIUS AND EPICUREANISM. George Depue Hadzsits, _University of Pennsylvania_.

13. OVID. Edward K. Rand, _Harvard University_.

14. HORACE. Grant Showerman, _University of Wisconsin_.

15. VIRGIL. John William Mackail, _Balliol College, Oxford_.

16. SENECA. Richard Mott Gummere, _The William Penn Charter School_.

17. ROMAN HISTORIANS. G. Ferrero, _Florence_.

18. MARTIAL. Paul Nixon, _Bowdoin College_.

19. PLATONISM. Alfred Edward Taylor, _St. Andrew’s University_.

20. ARISTOTELIANISM. John L. Stocks, _St. John’s College, Oxford_.

21. STOICISM. Robert Mark Wenley, _University of Michigan_.

22. LANGUAGE AND PHILOLOGY. Roland G. Kent, _University of Pennsylvania_.

23. RHETORIC AND LITERARY CRITICISM.

24. GREEK RELIGION. Walter W. Hyde, _University of Pennsylvania_.

25. ROMAN RELIGION. Gordon J. Laing, _McGill University_.

26. MYTHOLOGIES. Jane Ellen Harrison, _Newnham College, Cambridge_.

27. THEORIES REGARDING THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. Clifford H. Moore, _Harvard University_.

28. STAGE ANTIQUITIES. James T. Allen, _University of California_.

29. GREEK POLITICS. Ernest Barker, _King’s College, University of London_.

30. ROMAN POLITICS. Frank Frost Abbott, _Princeton University_.

31. ROMAN LAW. Roscoe Pound, _Harvard Law School_.

32. ECONOMICS AND SOCIETY. M. T. Rostovtzeff, _University of Wisconsin_.

33. WARFARE BY LAND AND SEA. E. S. McCartney, _University of Michigan_.

34. THE GREEK FATHERS. Roy J. Deferrari, _The Catholic University of America_.

35. BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE. Henry Osborn Taylor, _New York_.

36. MATHEMATICS. David Eugene Smith, _Teachers’ College, Columbia University_.

37. LOVE OF NATURE. H. R. Fairclough, _Leland Stanford Junior University_.

38. ASTRONOMY AND ASTROLOGY. Franz Cumont, _Brussels_.

39. THE FINE ARTS. Arthur Fairbanks, _Museum of Fine Arts, Boston_.

40. ARCHITECTURE. Alfred M. Brooks, _Swarthmore College_.

41. ENGINEERING. Alexander P. Gest, _Philadelphia_.

42. GREEK PRIVATE LIFE, ITS SURVIVALS. Charles Burton Gulick, _Harvard University_.

43. ROMAN PRIVATE LIFE, ITS SURVIVALS. Walton B. McDaniel, _University of Pennsylvania_.

44. FOLK LORE. Campbell Bonner, _University of Michigan_.

45. GREEK AND ROMAN EDUCATION.

46. CHRISTIAN LATIN WRITERS. Andrew F. West, _Princeton University_.

47. ROMAN POETRY AND ITS INFLUENCE UPON EUROPEAN CULTURE. Paul Shorey, _University of Chicago_.

48. PSYCHOLOGY.

49. MUSIC.

50. ANCIENT AND MODERN ROME. Rodolfo Lanciani, _Rome_.

Transcriber’s Notes

Page 19: “the nobilty” changed to “the nobility”

Page 56: “is dissatified” changed to “is dissatisfied”

Page 57: “similiar contempt” changed to “similar contempt”

Page 74: “Branches of Goverment” changed to “Branches of Government”

Page 147: “niggardly apropriations” changed to “niggardly appropriations”