Rome of the gradually sovereignty. Gradually Rome, even in her earlier leagues, like Assumption by Athens and Sparta in the case of their respective con- hegemony, federations, assumed the hegemony, and often arrogated which to herself the right to decide questions of peace and of developed into war, claimed the exclusive command of the combined forces, and appointed her own military officers and other administrative officials to be at the head of the common affairs. Booty captured in war was not always equally divided. Auspices came to be taken in the Capitol in the name of the entire league. Various additional encroachments were step by step made by Rome to such an extent that what was originally a foedus aequum degenerated virtually into a foedus iniquum, which was the usual preliminary to bringing about the complete subjection of her allies. A clear manifestation of this policy is discernible in the affairs consequent on the first Samnite war. In 343 B.c. the Campanians appealed to Rome and Latium,' between whom an alliance then subsisted, to protect them against the aggressions of the Samnites. The latter were soon after defeated, and in 340 B.C. Rome concluded a separate peace with them. The political position in Italy became thus greatly modified. The Latins, with whom Rome was still in alliance, continued the war against the Samnites; and, in accordance with the terms of their previous compact, they were entitled to call upon the Romans to help them. One can hardly wonder that Livy's account is based on the assumption that the Latins were the dependent allies of Rome, and that the war was really due to a revolt on their part. But as it has already been shown, from the text of Dionysius and the authority of Cincius, the Latins enjoyed the right of making war, independently of any sanction 1 Livy, vii. 31, says that Capua solicited the support of the Romans alone, and obtained it in return for a surrender (deditio) to, and recognition of, the sovereignty of Rome. But this statement is probably untrue. In fact the whole account of the Samnite and Latin wars appears to have been grossly garbled by the Roman annalists. 2 viii. 2. A Latin proposal rejected. from Rome; at least, no provision to the contrary appears.1 In the internal affairs of Rome, there was a tendency in the aristocratic party to make concessions to the plebeians; but this spirit did not extend so readily to her foreign relationships. The concessions which had been granted to the Roman soldiers were denied to their Latin comrades. A change in the relationships between Rome and Latium seemed inevitable at this juncture. At a general conference of the Latin cities, a proposal was made for establishing a more thorough union with Rome, and twelve commissioners were accordingly despatched to convey the resolution.2 The substance of this was that the two parties should be completely united; that they should be governed jointly by two consuls or praetors, one to be chosen from each side; that there should be one senate consisting of an equal number of Roman and Latin members; that there should be a common sovereign assembly, in which Rome was not to preponderate in regard to the number of tribes; further, they were willing that Rome should be the capital of the combined nations, and the seat of the central government. And probably they also suggested that the Latin Jupiter of the Alban Mount should in all respects be regarded as equal to the Roman Jupiter of the Capitol; that the consuls of the united confederacy should, on taking up office, offer their vows to both, and, on return from victory in the field, that they should proceed in triumph to the temples of both without drawing any disparaging distinction. L. Annius of Setia, one of the Latin praetors and the principal delegate, set forth before the senate, assembled in the Capitol, this proposal. To accept these terms, however, was considered tantamount to a sacrifice of national independence and national pride, apart from the implication of sacrilege in permitting aliens to have access to the temple of Jupiter. Hence the proposition was 2 Liv. viii. 5. 3 Cf. Liv. xxi. 63; xxii. 1. 1 See supra, p. 34. 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, Ŏ 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 ?"1 league. The Latin war eventually followed, and resulted in Dissolution of the submission of the cities of Latium;-so that the the 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 3 1 Liv. viii. 5: 666 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). 8 Ibid. 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 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.1 citizenship. Character of with foreign States. 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 dependence, including municipium, colonia, provincia. This is, of alliance and 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 ambassador of Antiochus, in the course of an address to the senate, recognized this discrimination as insisted on by the Romans, and drew to this effect a Kinds of made by 1 On this subject, see vol. i. pp. 256 seq. 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.1 distinctions 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. I |