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.1 In any case the 'dignitas' and the utilitas' of the Roman people were always to be consulted, and proceedings conducted accordingly.2

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 (avtovouía) to express this condition, whereas a Latin writer employs such expressions as 'immunitas,' libertas,' legibus suis uti,' and the like. The word éλevoepía (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, ἀφουρήτους, ἀφορολογήτους, ἐλευθέρους ὄντας,

1 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."

2 Ibid.

8 Cf. Liv. xxxiii. 32. 5; xxxv. 46; xxxvii. 32; xxxviii. 39; xlv. 29, etc.

4 As to the relationships of αὐτονομία and ἐλευθερία, cf. Mommsen, Röm. Staatsrecht, vol. iii. p. 658, where he says: “ Die αὐτονομία deckt sich insofern mit der λevepía, als die gleiche Rechtsstellung bei der éλev@epía von Seiten der souveränen Gewalt der Burgerschaft, bei der avrovouía von der des eigenen Volksrechts aufgefasst wird und beide werden daher häufig combinirt."

πολιτείαις καὶ νόμοις χρωμένους τοῖς 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."

minus aequum.

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'; 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.

4

3

Liv. xxxiii. 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."

The foedus iniquum.

'conservanto' (that is, they must aid in maintaining), he points out, which is used more often in statutes rather than in treaties, refers to one who commands, not to one who supplicates. And when there is an injunction that the 'dignity' of one of the parties is to be maintained, no mention being at the same time made of the other, that nation is, of course, placed in a higher rank and position, the dignity of which is safeguarded by the sanction of the treaty. Further, comiter' (a word which frequently accompanies conservanto') signifies not 'jointly' (like communiter'), according to the interpretation sometimes made by those who tried to extricate themselves from the obligations established by the engagement, but rather cordially.':

In the case of this class of treaties, the nations allied to Rome necessarily abandoned a portion of their sovereignty, if not as regards their internal affairs, at least in their foreign relationships; for their transactions of external diplomacy were virtually in the hands of the Romans. Thus they were not really 'populi liberi '; they exercised rather a semi-sovereignty, a ' dubia libertas.' They were gradually subjected more and more to Rome, so that their monarchs became practically agents of Roman supremacy, 'reges inservientes,' 2 or 'subreguli,' who were in some cases watched over, or actually supplanted by Roman praefecti, or procuratores.

The foedus iniquum established the complete dependence on Rome of the State contracting this kind of treaty, and usually contained some such expression as ' in dicione populi Romani.' Thus, about 317 B.C., in the course of the second Samnite war, the Teatians of Apulia, on account of intestine dissensions in their

1 Cic. Pro Balbo, 16: "Primum verbi genus hoc conservanto,' quo magis in legibus quam in foederibus uti solemus, imperantis est, non precantis. Deinde, cum alterius populi maiestas conservari iubetur, de altero siletur, certe ille populus in superiore condicione causaque ponitur, cuius maiestas foederis sanctione defenditur. . . ' communiter' quidem certe non convenit."

2 Tacit. Hist. ii. 81.

country, sued the Roman consuls for an alliance, engaging that peace would be observed towards the Romans throughout every part of Apulia. By pledging themselves to this promise they obtained the grant of an alliance, not on terms of equality, as Livy says, but on their submitting to the dominion of the Roman people.1 Again, in 210 B.C. the plebeian tribune, Lucius Atilius, proposed to the people, on the recommendation of the senate, a bill in reference to the Campanians, Atellanians, Calatinians and Sabatinians who had surrendered to the proconsul Fulvius, and placed themselves under the authority and dominion of the Roman people.2

foederati.'

The allies in general-the populi foederati-and Position of especially so those of the subordinate categories, owed the popul fidelity and were obliged to pay homage to the senate or to the emperor, as the case may be, without being entitled to exact correlative legal duties on the part of Rome. When their internal autonomy was left intact, their external independence or sovereignty (equally described as maiestas) was diminished or entirely taken away, so that Rome assured to herself a position not merely of nominal headship but of effective superiority by compelling them to have no other friends and no other enemies than those she herself had. The various States, when hard pressed, made these sacrifices in return for Rome's protection. Yet they were scarcely in the position of real protectorates. Rome shared

1Liv. ix. 20: “Id audacter spondendo impetravere, ut foedus daretur, neque ut aequo tamen foedere, sed ut in dicione populi Romani essent."

2 Liv. xxvi. 33: "L. Atilius tribunus plebis ex auctoritate senatus plebem in haec verba rogavit : Omnes Campani, Atellani, Calatini, Sabatini, qui se dediderunt in arbitrium dicionemque populi Romani Fulvio proconsuli...."-Cf. also Liv. viii. 2; xli. 6; Polyb. xx. 9

and 10.

3 Cic. De invent. xlix. 15: “Maiestatem minuere est de dignitate, aut amplitudine, aut potestate populi, aut eorum quibus potestatem populus dedit, aliquid derogare.'

their disputes and offered support rather in view of her own political interests than through any recognized obligation of a strictly juridical character. These States, more particularly where 'foedera iniqua' were understood, came to be controlled as a kind of beneficium, and even, on some occasions, as a life beneficium. Their territories were in the position of 'provinces,' and their right in the land was of the nature of a usufruct; its property was claimed by the Romans, as is shown by their exaction of tribute or taxes,-the tributum, or the vectigal. In their relationships with Rome, they had no true international character, no intrinsic juridical personality. A modern French writer, M. Despagnet, assimilates their condition to that of the Hindu princes under British supremacy,-"leur condition est comparable à celle des princes hindous sous la domination anglaise."2 The heads of such States-as, for example, Juba, one of the 'reges inservientes' of the class described by Tacitus differed but little from Roman proconsuls, inasmuch as they were made the mere instruments of the central authority, and the means of promoting imperial expansion. In a word, the policy of Rome (more markedly in her later history) was to extend protection to nations in return for their subordination, which eventually meant complete absorption. As Montesquieu points out, Rome first of all accustomed States to show obedience to her, whether they were free and independent, or afterwards in alliance with, or in subjection to, her; and this paved the way to the readier and more thorough attachment of their terri

8

1 Cf. Gaius, Inst. ii. 7: "Sed in provinciali solo placet plerisque solum religiosum non fieri, quia in eo solo dominium populi Romani est vel Caesaris, nos autem possessionem tantum vel usumfructum habere videmur."

2 F. Despagnet, Essai sur les protectorats (Paris, 1896), p. 61.

3 Hist. ii. 81.

4 Cic. De offic. ii. 8: Regum populorum nationum portus erat et refugium senatus. . . . Itaque illud patrocinium orbis terrae verius quam imperium poterat nominari.”