« IndietroContinua »
disdainfully rejected ; and T. Manlius Torquatus, one of the newly-elected consuls, remarked that if the senate were so regardless of its dignity as to receive the law from a man of Setia, he would come armed into the senate-house, and would plunge his sword into the body of the first Latin he saw there. Then turning to the image of Jupiter, he exclaimed : “Hear, o Jupiter, these impious proposals ! Hear ye them, O guardians of human and divine law! Wilt thou, Jupiter, suffer to behold alien consuls and an alien senate within the sacred precincts of thy temple, as though thou wert thyself vanquished and made captive }”]
The Latin war eventually followed, and resulted in Dissolution of the submission of the cities of Latium ;—so that the be latin
. Latin league was entirely broken up. The previous alliance established on a seemingly equal footing was converted into the vanquished party's subjection to Rome. With regard to the cities of Latium in general, the policy of segregation was adopted by Rome ; in accordance with which it was laid down that henceforth there should not be any common meetings, assemblies, or councils for any two or more of the surrendered cities, and, moreover, that they should be in the position of aliens to one another, with no reciprocal rights of connubium and commercium. Apart from this general policy, and from the point of view of the position of the cities with regard to Rome, each one appears to have been considered separately, and treated as considerations of justice or expediency determined. Some of the Latin towns, indeed, such as Tibur and Praeneste, were
1 Liv. viii. 5: “ Audi, Iuppiter, haec scelera, inquit, audite, Ius Fasque ; peregrinos consules et peregrinum senatum in tuo, Iuppiter, augurato templo captus atque ipse oppressus visurus es?"" 2 Liv. viii. 14 :
“Ceteris Latinis populis connubia commerciaque et concilia inter se ademerunt.”—Cf. Rome's similar action in the case of the Hernicans, after their revolt, in the second Samnite war (Liv. ix. 43); and in that of the Macedonians after the battle of Pydna (Liv. xlv. 29).
with foreign States.
accorded a certain independence, and were permitted to retain their own laws and magistrates. Roman garrisons occupied others, like Velitrae, under the name of colonies. A few, such as Aricia, Pedum, Nomentum, enjoyed an intermediate position, remaining in their own
territory, and continuing their national usages, but Origin of Latin under the control of a Roman prefect. The greater citizenship.
portion of the Latin population was admitted to a qualified Roman citizenship, being debarred from the political privileges inherent in the ius suffragii, but not from the commercium and connubium. Such was the origin of Latin citizenship, Latium, or ius Latii.
It was remarked above that the foedus aequum tended relationships invariably to be transformed into the foedus iniquum. It
will be well, in this connection, to say here a few words. on the relationships of Rome with foreign States in general. As has already been pointed out, the pacific
relationships of Rome with other countries may be Relationships classified into those of alliance, including amicitia, of dependence. hospitium publicum, foedus, societas ; and those of depend
ence, including municipium, colonia, provincia. This is, of course, more of the nature of a theoretical division, seeing that in actual practice the foedus was susceptible to so many gradations as to be applicable to States in subjection to Rome, as well as to those enjoying complete independence and autonomy. And in this respect it is extremely important to bear in mind the profoundly modified-in some matters distinctly revolutionary—practices of later Rome in contrast to those which obtained in her earlier history. But, broadly speaking, we may distinguish, as the Romans themselves
were in the habit of doing, three kinds of foedera,—the foedera.
foedus aequum, the foedus minus aequum, and the foedus Classification iniquum. Thus Livy relates that in 193 B.c. Menippus, the Syrian
the ambassador of Antiochus, in the course of an ambassador. address to the senate, recognized this discrimination as
insisted on by the Romans, and drew to this effect a
of alliance and
threefold distinction regarding international relationships in time of peace. There are three kinds of treaties, he observed, by which Kings and States contract bonds of friendship between each other :-One is when terms are dictated to a people vanquished in war,—for after all their possessions have been surrendered to the victor he has the sole power of judging and determining what portion of the property the conquered party shall hold, and of what they shall be deprived. The second is when parties equally matched in war conclude a treaty of peace and friendship in terms of equality,—for then demands are proposed, and restitution effected reciprocally, by means of a convention ; and if, in consequence of the war, confusion has arisen with respect to any part of their property, the controversy is adjusted by reference either to ancient rights or to the mutual convenience of the parties. The third kind is where parties who have not been foes meet to establish a friendly union by a treaty of alliance, -in which case there is neither a dictation of, nor submission to, terms, but simply a mutual agreement."
But the Roman policy of making theoretical concep- Theoretical tions, and even previously applied distinctions, subser- subordinated vient to the general interests of the State, and to the to practice. particular necessity of each case, is shown in the way T. Quinctius Flamininus, 'the father and deliverer of Greece,' disregarded the distinctions of the Syrian envoy, and laid down two conditions without which Rome would never treat with Antiochus, namely, that the king of
1 Liv. xxxiv. 57 : “Esse autem tria genera foederum, quibus inter se paciscerentur amicitias civitates regesque : unum, quum bello victis dicerentur leges ; ubi enim omnia ei, qui armis plus posset, dedita essent, quae ex iis habere victos, quibus multari eos velit, ipsius ius atque arbitrium esse ; alterum, quum pares bello aequo foedere in pacem atque amicitiam venirent ; tunc enim repeti reddique per conventionem res est, si quarum turbata bello possessio sit, eas aut ex formula iuris antiqui aut ex partis utriusque commodo componi; tertium esse genus, quum, qui nunquam hostes fuerint, ad amicitiam sociali foedere inter se iungendam coeant ; eos neque dicere neque accipere leges ; id enim victoris et victi esse.”—Cf. ibid. xxxvii. 1 and 8.
The foedus aequum,
Syria should agree to Rome's intervention in the political affairs of the towns of Asia, and to her establishment of alliances with them, in case he was not prepared to confine himself within the limits of Asia ; and, on the other hand, if he objected to such intervention, that he should himself keep entirely out of Europe. In any case the "dignitas' and the utilitas' of 'the Roman people were always to be consulted, and proceedings conducted accordingly.?
. The foedus aequum constituted a defensive and offensive alliance, ostensibly on a basis of legal and political equality, of which the fundamental provision was the agreement to accept the same friends and enemies, “ut eosdem amicos atque inimicos foederati haberent.” This arrangement implied the freedom, independence, and sovereignty of the foreign State with regard to Rome. Polybius often uses the word 'autonomy’ (aitovouía) to express this condition, whereas a Latin writer employs such expressions as 'immunitas, ' • libertas,' legibus suis uti,' and the like. The word é evdepía (“liberty ') is also used as practically equivalent, though in Greek writers there is in it usually an implication of liberty in the sense of the condition of a democratic government. Thus the customary formula adopted by Polybius to express the granting of autonomy is, -αφουρήτους, αφορολογήτους, ελευθέρους όντας,
Liv. xxxiv. 58: “... unam, si nos nihil, quod ad urbes Asiae attinet, curare velit, ut et ipse omni Europa abstineat ; alteram, si se ille Asiae finibus non contineat et in Europam transcendat, ut et Romanis ius sit Asiae civitatium amicitias et tueri, quas habeant, et novas complecti.”
8 Cf. Liv. xxxiii. 32. 5; xxxv. 46; xxxvii. 32 ; xxxviii. 39; xlv. 29, etc.
4 As to the relationships of αυτονομία and ελευθερία, cf. Mommsen, Röm. Staatsrecht, vol. iii. p. 658, where he says: “Die aŭtovouía deckt sich insofern mit der é evőepía, als die gleiche Rechtsstellung bei der élevé epia von Seiten der souveränen Gewalt der Burgerschaft, bei der aútovouía von der des eigenen Volksrechts aufgefasst wird und beide werden daher häufig combinirt."
πολιτείαις και νόμοις χρωμένους τους πατρίοις' (freedom from tribute or taxation, and enjoyment of their ancestral laws and institutions), whilst in Livy we find such terms as “liberos, immunes, suis legibus esse iubere Achaeos."
The foedus minus aequum conferred on Rome a certain the foedus measure of sovereignty with regard to the other contracting party,—at least, she acquired thereby a distinct preponderance or hegemony. This is shown by such a frequently recurring formula as 'maiestatem populi Romani conservanto,' emphasizing the recognition by the other States of Roman 'majesty,' or supremacy. Proculus, distinguishing in the Digest between sovereignty and subjection, and pointing out that a State may enjoy full sovereignty though in alliance with Rome, yet makes use of the expression “maiestatem comiter conservaret';8 at the same time he says nothing of the correlative obligation of Rome. Similarly, in the articles of peace concluded with the Aetolians, 191 B.c., the first clause is to the effect that the Aetolian peoples were to respect conscientiously the empire and majesty of Rome, “...
... imperium maiestatemque populi Romani gens Aetolorum conservato sine dolo malo.”. Respecting formulas of this character Cicero offers the following explanation. The expression
1 Polyb. iv, 25. 7.
? Liv, xxxii. 32. 5; and cf. the other passages, last cited, of Livy. Seneca, De benef
. v. 16, makes use of similar phraseology : “ Achaeis Rhodiis et plerisque urbibus claris ius integrum libertatemque cum immunitate reddiderat,” as does Caesar, De bell. gall. vii. 76: “civitatem eius immunem esse iusserat, iura legesque reddiderat.”
3 Dig. xlix. 15 (de captiv.), 7. 1 : “ Liber autem populus est is, qui nullius alterius populi potestati est subiectus : sive is foederatus est item, sive aequo foedere in amicitiam venit sive foedere comprehensum est, ut is populus alterius populi maiestatem comiter conservaret, hoc enim adicitur, ut intellegatur alterum populum superiorem esse, non ut intellegatur alterum non esse liberum ; et quemadmodum clientes nostros intellegimus liberos esse, etiamsi neque auctoritate neque dignitate neque viri boni nobis praesunt, sic eos, qui maiestatem nostram comiter conservare debent, liberos esse intellegendum est.”
4 Liv. xxxviii. 11.