[Transcriber's note: This book makes use of the Roman denarius symbol. Because this symbol is not available in Unicode, it has been replaced bythe ROMAN NUMERAL TEN (U+2169) with a COMBINING LONG STROKE OVERLAY(U+0336) in the UTF-8 version. ]

The Common People of Ancient Rome

Studies of Roman Life and Literature

By

Frank Frost Abbott

Kennedy Professor of the Latin Language and Literature in PrincetonUniversity

New YorkCharles Scribner's Sons

Copyright, 1911, byCharles Scribner's Sons

Printed in the United States of America

Dedicated to J. H. A. 

Prefatory Note

This book, like the volume on "Society and Politics in Ancient Rome, "deals with the life of the common people, with their language andliterature, their occupations and amusements, and with their social, political, and economic conditions. We are interested in the common peopleof Rome because they made the Roman Empire what it was. They carried theRoman standards to the Euphrates and the Atlantic; they lived abroad astraders, farmers, and soldiers to hold and Romanize the provinces, or theystayed at home, working as carpenters, masons, or bakers, to supply thedaily needs of the capital. 

The other side of the subject which has engaged the attention of theauthor in studying these topics has been the many points of similaritywhich arise between ancient and modern conditions, and between theproblems which the Roman faced and those which confront us. What policyshall the government adopt toward corporations? How can the cost of livingbe kept down? What effect have private benefactions on the character of apeople? Shall a nation try to introduce its own language into theterritory of a subject people, or shall it allow the native language to beused, and, if it seeks to introduce its own tongue, how can it bestaccomplish its object? The Roman attacked all these questions, solved someof them admirably, and failed with others egregiously. His successes andhis failures are perhaps equally illuminating, and the fact that hisattempts to improve social and economic conditions run through a period ofa thousand years should make the study of them of the greater interest andvalue to us. 

Of the chapters which this book contains, the article on "The Origin ofthe Realistic Romance among the Romans" appeared originally in _ClassicalPhilology_, and the author is indebted to the editors of that periodicalfor permission to reprint it here. The other papers are now published forthe first time. 

It has not seemed advisable to refer to the sources to substantiate everyopinion which has been expressed, but a few references have been given inthe foot-notes mainly for the sake of the reader who may wish to followsome subject farther than has been possible in these brief chapters. Theproofs had to be corrected while the author was away from his own books, so that he was unable to make a final verification of two or three of thecitations, but he trusts that they, as well as the others, are accurate. He takes this opportunity to acknowledge his indebtedness to Dr. DonaldBlythe Durham, of Princeton University, for the preparation of the index. 

Frank Frost Abbott. Einsiedeln, Switzerland_September 2, 1911_

Contents

How Latin Became the Language of the WorldThe Latin of the Common PeopleThe Poetry of the Common People of Rome: I. Their Metrical Epitaphs II. Their Dedicatory and Ephemeral VersesThe Origin of the Realistic Romance Among the RomansDiocletian's Edict and the High Cost of LivingPrivate Benefactions and Their Effect on the Municipal Life of the RomansSome Reflections on Corporations and Trade-GuildsA Roman Politician, Gaius Scribonius CurioGaius Matius, a Friend of Cæsar

Index

The Common People of Ancient Rome

How Latin Became the Language of the World

How the armies of Rome mastered the nations of the world is known to everyreader of history, but the story of the conquest by Latin of the languagesof the world is vague in the minds of most of us. If we should askourselves how it came about, we should probably think of the world-widesupremacy of Latin as a natural result of the world-wide supremacy of theRoman legions or of Roman law. But in making this assumption we should beshutting our eyes to the history of our own times. A conquered people doesnot necessarily accept, perhaps it has not commonly accepted, the tongueof its master. In his "Ancient and Modern Imperialism" Lord Cromer statesthat in India only one hundred people in every ten thousand can read andwrite English, and this condition exists after an occupation of onehundred and fifty years or more. He adds: "There does not appear theleast prospect of French supplanting Arabic in Algeria. " In comparing theresults of ancient and modern methods perhaps he should have taken intoaccount the fact that India and Algeria have literatures of their own, which most of the outlying peoples subdued by Rome did not have, and theseliteratures may have strengthened the resistance which the tongue of theconquered people has offered to that of the conqueror, but, even whenallowance is made for this fact, the difference in resultant conditions issurprising. From its narrow confines, within a little district on thebanks of the Tiber, covering, at the close of the fifth century B. C. , lessthan a hundred square miles, Latin spread through Italy and the islands ofthe Mediterranean, through France, Spain, England, northern Africa, andthe Danubian provinces, triumphing over all the other tongues of thoseregions more completely than Roman arms triumphed over the peoples usingthem. 

In tracing the story we must keep in our mind's eye the linguisticgeography of Italy, just as we must remember the political geography ofthe peninsula in following Rome's territorial expansion. Let us think atthe outset, then, of a little strip of flat country on the Tiber, dottedhere and there with hills crowned with villages. Such hill towns wereRome, Tusculum, and Præneste, for instance. Each of them was thestronghold and market-place of the country immediately about it, andtherefore had a life of its own, so that although Latin was spoken in allof them it varied from one to the other. This is shown clearly enough bythe inscriptions which have been found on the sites of these ancienttowns, [1] and as late as the close of the third century before our era, Plautus pokes fun in his comedies at the provincialism of Præneste. 

The towns which we have mentioned were only a few miles from Rome. Beyondthem, and occupying central Italy and a large part of southern Italy, werepeople who spoke Oscan and the other Italic dialects, which were relatedto Latin, and yet quite distinct from it. In the seaports of the southGreek was spoken, while the Messapians and Iapygians occupied Calabria. Tothe north of Rome were the mysterious Etruscans and the almost equallypuzzling Venetians and Ligurians. When we follow the Roman legions acrossthe Alps into Switzerland, France, England, Spain, and Africa, we enter ajungle, as it were, of languages and dialects. A mere reading of the listof tongues with which Latin was brought into contact, if such a list couldbe drawn up, would bring weariness to the flesh. In the part of Gaulconquered by Cæsar, for instance, he tells us that there were threeindependent languages, and sixty distinct states, whose peoples doubtlessdiffered from one another in their speech. If we look at a map of theRoman world under Augustus, with the Atlantic to bound it on the west, theEuphrates on the east, the desert of Sahara on the south, and the Rhineand Danube on the north, and recall the fact that the linguisticconditions which Cæsar found in Gaul in 58 B. C. Were typical of whatconfronted Latin in a great many of the western, southern, and northernprovinces, the fact that Latin subdued all these different tongues, andbecame the every-day speech of these different peoples, will be recognizedas one of the marvels of history. In fact, so firmly did it establishitself, that it withstood the assaults of the invading Gothic, Lombardic, Frankish, and Burgundian, and has continued to hold to our own day a verylarge part of the territory which it acquired some two thousand yearsago. 

That Latin was the common speech of the western world is attested not onlyby the fact that the languages of France, Spain, Roumania, and the otherRomance countries descend from it, but it is also clearly shown by thethousands of Latin inscriptions composed by freeman and freedman, bycarpenter, baker, and soldier, which we find all over the Roman world. 

How did this extraordinary result come about? It was not the conquest ofthe world by the common language of Italy, because in Italy in early daysat least nine different languages were spoken, but its subjugation by thetongue spoken in the city of Rome. The traditional narrative of Rome, asLivy and others relate it, tells us of a struggle with the neighboringLatin hill towns in the early days of the Republic, and the ultimateformation of an alliance between them and Rome. The favorable position ofthe city on the Tiber for trade and defence gave it a great advantage overits rivals, and it soon became the commercial and political centre of theneighboring territory. The most important of these villages, Tusculum, Præneste, and Lanuvium, were not more than twenty miles distant, and thepeople in them must have come constantly to Rome to attend the markets, and in later days to vote, to hear political speeches, and to listen toplays in the theatre. Some of them probably heard the jests at the expenseof their dialectal peculiarities which Plautus introduced into hiscomedies. The younger generations became ashamed of their provincialisms;they imitated the Latin spoken in the metropolis, and by the secondcentury of our era, when the Latin grammarians have occasion to citedialectal peculiarities from Latium outside Rome, they quote atsecond-hand from Varro of the first century B. C. , either because they willnot take the trouble to use their own ears or because the differenceswhich were noted in earlier days had ceased to exist. The first stage inthe conquest of the world by the Latin of Rome comes to an end, then, withthe extension of that form of speech throughout Latium. 

Beyond the limits of Latium it came into contact with Oscan and the otherItalic dialects, which were related to Latin, but of course were muchfarther removed from it than the Latin of Tusculum or Lanuvium hadbeen, [2] so that the adoption of Latin was not so simple a matter as theacceptance of Roman Latin by the villages of Latium near Rome had been. 

The conflict which went on between Latin and its Italic kinsmen isrevealed to us now and then by a Latin inscription, into which Oscan orUmbrian forms have crept. [3] The struggle had come to an end by thebeginning of our era. A few Oscan inscriptions are found scratched on thewalls of Pompeii after the first earthquake, in 63 A. D. , but they are latesurvivals, and no Umbrian inscriptions are known of a date subsequent tothe first century B. C. 

The Social War of 90-88 B. C. , between Rome and the Italians, was aturning-point in the struggle between Latin and the Italic dialects, because it marks a change in the political treatment of Rome'sdependencies in Italy. Up to this time she had followed the policy ofisolating all her Italian conquered communities from one another. She wasanxious to prevent them from conspiring against her. Thus, with thisobject in view, she made differences in the rights and privileges grantedto neighboring communities, in order that, not being subject to the samelimitations, and therefore not having the same grievances, they might nothave a common basis for joint action against her. It would naturally be apart of that policy to allow or to encourage the retention by the severalcommunities of their own dialects. The common use of Latin would haveenabled them to combine against her with greater ease. With the conclusionof the Social War this policy gave way before the new conception ofpolitical unity for the people of Italian stock, and with political unitycame the introduction of Latin as the common tongue in all officialtransactions of a local as well as of a federal character. The immediateresults of the war, and the policy which Rome carried out at its close ofsending out colonies and building roads in Italy, contributed still moreto the larger use of Latin throughout the central and southern parts ofthe peninsula. Samnium, Lucania, and the territory of the Bruttii sufferedseverely from depopulation; many colonies were sent into all thesedistricts, so that, although the old dialects must have persisted for atime in some of the mountain towns to the north of Rome, the yearsfollowing the conclusion of the Social War mark the rapid disappearance ofthem and the substitution of Latin in their place. Campania took littlepart in the war, and was therefore left untouched. This fact accountsprobably for the occurrence of a few Oscan inscriptions on the walls ofPompeii as late as 63 A. D. 

We need not follow here the story of the subjugation of the Greek seaportsin southern Italy and of the peoples to the north who spoke non-Italiclanguages. In all these cases Latin was brought into conflict withlanguages not related to itself, and the situation contains slightlydifferent elements from those which present themselves in the strugglebetween Latin and the Italic dialects. The latter were nearly enoughrelated to Latin to furnish some support for the theory that Latin wasmodified by contact with them, and this theory has found advocates, [4] butthere is no sufficient reason for believing that it was materiallyinfluenced. An interesting illustration of the influence of Greek on theLatin of every-day life is furnished by the realistic novel whichPetronius wrote in the middle of the first century of our era. Thecharacters in his story are Greeks, and the language which they speak isLatin, but they introduce into it a great many Greek words, and now andthen a Greek idiom or construction. 

The Romans, as is well known, used two agencies with great effect inRomanizing their newly acquired territory, viz. , colonies and roads. Thepolicy of sending out colonists to hold the new districts was definitelyentered upon in the early part of the fourth century, when citizens weresent to Antium, Tarracina, and other points in Latium. Within this centuryfifteen or twenty colonies were established at various points in centralItaly. Strategic considerations determined their location, and the choicewas made with great wisdom. Sutrium and Nepete, on the borders of theCiminian forest, were "the gates of Etruria"; Fregellæ and Interamnacommanded the passage of the river Liris; Tarentum and Rhegium wereimportant ports of entry, while Alba Fucens and Carsioli guarded the lineof the Valerian road. 

This road and the other great highways which were constructed in Italybrought not only all the colonies, but all parts of the peninsula, intoeasy communication with the capital. The earliest of them was built toCapua, as we know, by the great censor Appius Claudius, in 312 B. C. , andwhen one looks at a map of Italy at the close of the third century beforeour era, and sees the central and southern parts of the peninsula dottedwith colonies, the Appian Way running from Rome south-east to Brundisium, the Popillian Way to Rhegium, the Flaminian Way north-east to Ariminum, with an extension to Cremona, with the Cassian and Aurelian ways along thewestern coast, the rapidity and the completeness with which the Latinlanguage overspread Italy ceases to be a mystery. A map of Spain or ofFrance under the Empire, with its network of roads, is equallyilluminating. 

The missionaries who carried Roman law, Roman dress, Roman ideas, and theLatin language first through central, southern, and northern Italy, andthen to the East and the West, were the colonist, the merchant, thesoldier, and the federal official. The central government exempted theRoman citizen who settled in a provincial town from the local taxes. Asthese were very heavy, his advantage over the native was correspondinglygreat, and in almost all the large towns in the Empire we find evidence ofthe existence of large guilds of Roman traders, tax-collectors, bankers, and land-owners. [5] When Trajan in his romantic eastern campaign hadpenetrated to Ctesiphon, the capital of Parthia, he found Roman merchantsalready settled there. Besides the merchants and capitalists who wereengaged in business on their own account in the provinces, there werethousands of agents for the great Roman corporations scattered through theEmpire. Rome was the money centre of the world, and the great stockcompanies organized to lend money, construct public works, collect taxes, and engage in the shipping trade had their central offices in the capitalwhence they sent out their representatives to all parts of the world. 

The soldier played as important a part as the merchant in extending theuse of Latin. Tacitus tells us that in the reign of Augustus there weretwenty-five legions stationed in the provinces. If we allow 6, 000 men to alegion, we should have a total of 150, 000 Roman soldiers scattered throughthe provinces. To these must be added the auxiliary troops which were madeup of natives who, at the close of their term of service, were probablyable to speak Latin, and when they settled among their own people again, would carry a knowledge of it into ever-widening circles. We have no exactknowledge of the number of the auxiliary troops, but they probably came tobe as numerous as the legionaries. [6] Soldiers stationed on the frontiersfrequently married native women at the end of their term of service, passed the rest of their lives in the provinces, and their childrenlearned Latin. 

The direct influence of the government was no small factor in developingthe use of Latin, which was of course the official language of the Empire. All court proceedings were carried on in Latin. It was the language ofthe governor, the petty official, and the tax-gatherer. It was used inlaws and proclamations, and no native could aspire to a post in the civilservice unless he had mastered it. It was regarded sometimes at least as a_sine qua non_ of the much-coveted Roman citizenship. The EmperorClaudius, for instance, cancelled the Roman citizenship of a Greek, because he had addressed a letter to him in Latin which he could notunderstand. The tradition that Latin was the official language of theworld was taken up by the Christian church. Even when Constantine presidedover the Council at Nicæa in the East, he addressed the assembly in Latin. 

The two last-mentioned agencies, the Latin of the Roman official and theLatin of the church, were the influences which made the language spokenthroughout the Empire essentially uniform in its character. Had the Latinwhich the colonist, the merchant, and the soldier carried through Italyand into the provinces been allowed to develop in different localitieswithout any external unifying influence, probably new dialects would havegrown up all over the world, or, to put it in another way, probably theRomance languages would have come into existence several centuries beforethey actually appeared. That unifying influence was the Latin used by theofficials sent out from Rome, which all classes eagerly strove to imitate. Naturally the language of the provinces did not conform in all respects tothe Roman standard. Apuleius, for instance, is aware of the fact that hisAfrican style and diction are likely to offend his Roman readers, and inthe introduction to his _Metamorphoses_ he begs for their indulgence. Theelder Seneca in his _Controversiae_ remarks of a Spanish fellow-countryman"that he could never unlearn that well-known style which is brusque andrustic and characteristic of Spain, " and Spartianus in his Life of Hadriantells us that when Hadrian addressed the senate on a certain occasion, hisrustic pronunciation excited the laughter of the senators. But thepeculiarities in the diction of Apuleius and Hadrian seem to have beenthose which only a cultivated man of the world would notice. They do notappear to have been fundamental. In a similar way the careful studieswhich have been made of the thousands of inscriptions found in theWest[7], dedicatory inscriptions, guild records, and epitaphs show usthat the language of the common people in the provinces did not differmaterially from that spoken in Italy. It was the language of the Romansoldier, colonist, and trader, with common characteristics in the way ofdiction, form, phraseology, and syntax, dropping into some slight localpeculiarities, but kept essentially a unit by the desire which eachcommunity felt to imitate its officials and its upper classes. 

The one part of the Roman world in which Latin did not gain an undisputedpre-eminence was the Greek East. The Romans freely recognized the peculiarposition which Greek was destined to hold in that part of the Empire, andstyled it the _altera lingua_. Even in Greek lands, however, Latin gaineda strong hold, and exerted considerable influence on Greek[8]. 

In a very thoughtful paper on "Language-Rivalry andSpeech-Differentiation in the Case of Race-Mixture, "[9] Professor Hemplhas discussed the conditions under which language-rivalry takes place, andstates the results that follow. His conclusions have an interestingbearing on the question which we are discussing here, how and why it wasthat Latin supplanted the other languages with which it was brought intocontact. 

He observes that when two languages are brought into conflict, there israrely a compromise or fusion, but one of the two is driven out of thefield altogether by the other. On analyzing the circumstances in whichsuch a struggle for supremacy between languages springs up, he finds fourcharacteristic cases. Sometimes the armies of one nation, thoughcomparatively small in numbers, conquer another country. They seize thegovernment of the conquered land; their ruler becomes its king, and theybecome the aristocracy. They constitute a minority, however; they identifytheir interests with those of the conquered people, and the language ofthe subject people becomes the language of all classes. The second casearises when a country is conquered by a foreign people who pour into itwith their wives and children through a long period and settle permanentlythere. The speech of the natives in these circumstances disappears. In thethird case a more powerful people conquers a country, establishes adependent government in it, sends out merchants, colonists, and officials, and establishes new towns. If such a province is held long enough, thelanguage of the conqueror prevails. In the fourth and last case peacefulbands of immigrants enter a country to follow the humbler callings. Theyare scattered among the natives, and succeed in proportion as they learnthe language of their adopted country. For their children andgrandchildren this language becomes their mother tongue, and the speech ofthe invaded nation holds its ground. 

The first typical case is illustrated by the history of Norman-French inEngland, the second by that of the European colonists in America; theLatinization of Spain, Gaul, and other Roman provinces furnishes aninstance of the third, and our own experience with European immigrants isa case of the fourth characteristic situation. The third typical case oflanguage-conflict is the one with which we are concerned here, and theanalysis which we have made of the practices followed by the Romans inoccupying newly acquired territory, both in Italy and outside thepeninsula, shows us how closely they conform to the typical situation. With the exception of Dacia, all the provinces were held by the Romans forseveral centuries, so that their history under Roman rule satisfies thecondition of long occupation which Professor Hempl lays down as anecessary one. Dacia which lay north of the Danube, and was thus farremoved from the centres of Roman influence, was erected into a provincein 107 A. D. , and abandoned in 270. Notwithstanding its remoteness and thecomparatively short period during which it was occupied, the Latinlanguage has continued in use in that region to the present day. Itfurnishes therefore a striking illustration of the effective methods whichthe Romans used in Latinizing conquered territory. [10]

We have already had occasion to notice that a fusion between Latin andthe languages with which it was brought into contact, such a fusion, forinstance, as we find in Pidgin-English, did not occur. These languagesinfluenced Latin only by way of making additions to its vocabulary. Agreat many Greek scientific and technical terms were adopted by thelearned during the period of Roman supremacy. Of this one is clearlyaware, for instance, in reading the philosophical and rhetorical works ofCicero. A few words, like rufus, crept into the language from the Italicdialects. Now and then the Keltic or Iberian names of Gallic or Spanisharticles were taken up, but the inflectional system and the syntax ofLatin retained their integrity. In the post-Roman period additions to thevocabulary are more significant. It is said that about three hundredGermanic words have found their way into all the Romance languages. [11]The language of the province of Gaul was most affected since some fourhundred and fifty Gothic, Lombardic, and Burgundian words are found inFrench alone, such words as boulevard, homard, and blesser. Each of theprovinces of course, when the Empire broke up, was subjected toinfluences peculiar to itself. The residence of the Moors in Spain, forseven hundred years, for instance, has left a deep impress on the Spanishvocabulary, while the geographic position of Roumanian has exposed it tothe influence of Slavic, Albanian, Greek, Magyar, and Turkish. [12] Asketch of the history of Latin after the breaking up of the Empire carriesus beyond the limits of the question which we set ourselves at thebeginning and out of the domain of the Latinist, but it may not be out ofplace to gather together here a few of the facts which the Romancephilologist has contributed to its later history, because the life ofLatin has been continuous from the foundation of the city of Rome to thepresent day. 

In this later period the question of paramount interest is, why did Latinin one part of the world develop into French, in another part intoItalian, in another into Spanish? One answer to this question has beenbased on chronological grounds. [13] The Roman soldiers and traders whowent out to garrison and to settle in a newly acquired territory, introduced that form of Latin which was in use in Italy at the time oftheir departure from the peninsula. The form of speech thus planted theredeveloped along lines peculiar to itself, became the dialect of thatprovince, and ultimately the (Romance) language spoken in that part ofEurope. Sardinia was conquered in 241 B. C. , and Sardinian therefore is adevelopment of the Latin spoken in Italy in the middle of the thirdcentury B. C. , that is of the Latin of Livius Andronicus. Spain was broughtunder Roman rule in 197 B. C. , and consequently Spanish is a naturaloutgrowth of popular Latin of the time of Plautus. In a similar way, bynoticing the date at which the several provinces were established down tothe acquisition of Dacia in 107 A. D. , we shall understand how it was thatthe several Romance languages developed out of Latin. So long as theEmpire held together the unifying influence of official Latin, and theconstant intercommunication between the provinces, preserved the essentialunity of Latin throughout the world, but when the bonds were broken, thenaturally divergent tendencies which had existed from the beginning, buthad been held in check, made themselves felt, and the speech of theseveral sections of the Old World developed into the languages which wefind in them to-day. 

This theory is suggestive, and leads to several important results, but itis open to serious criticism, and does not furnish a sufficientexplanation. It does not seem to take into account the steady stream ofemigrants from Italy to the provinces, and the constant transfer of troopsfrom one part of the world to another of which we become aware when westudy the history of any single province or legion. Spain was acquired, itis true, in 197 B. C. , and the Latin which was first introduced into it wasthe Latin of Plautus, but the subjugation of the country occupied morethan sixty years, and during this period fresh troops were steadily pouredinto the peninsula, and later on there was frequently an interchange oflegions between Spain and the other provinces. Furthermore, newcommunities of Roman citizens were established there even down into theEmpire, and traders were steadily moving into the province. In this way itwould seem that the Latin of the early second century which was originallycarried into Spain must have been constantly undergoing modification, and, so far as this influence goes, made approximately like the Latinspoken elsewhere in the Empire. 

A more satisfactory explanation seems to be that first clearly propoundedby the Italian philologist, Ascoli. His reasoning is that when we acquirea foreign language we find it very difficult, and often impossible, tomaster some of the new sounds. Our ears do not catch them exactly, or weunconsciously substitute for the foreign sound some sound from our ownlanguage. Our vocal organs, too, do not adapt themselves readily to thereproduction of the strange sounds in another tongue, as we know from thedifficulty which we have in pronouncing the French nasal or the Germanguttural. Similarly English differs somewhat as it is spoken by aFrenchman, a German, and an Italian. The Frenchman has a tendency toimport the nasal into it, and he is also inclined to pronounce it like hisown language, while the German favors the guttural. In a paper on theteaching of modern languages in our schools, Professor Grandgent says:[14]"Usually there is no attempt made to teach any French sounds but _u_ andthe four nasal vowels; all the rest are unquestioningly replaced by theEnglish vowels and consonants that most nearly resemble them. " Thesubstitution of sounds from one's own language in speaking a foreigntongue, and the changes in voice-inflection, are more numerous and moremarked if the man who learns the new language is uneducated and acquiresit in casual intercourse from an uneducated man who speaks carelessly. 

This was the state of things in the Roman provinces of southern Europewhen the Goths, Lombards, and other peoples from the North graduallycrossed the frontier and settled in the territory of Latin-speakingpeoples. In the sixth century, for instance, the Lombards in Italy, theFranks in France, and the Visigoths in Spain would each give to the Latinwhich they spoke a twist peculiar to themselves, and out of the one Latincame Italian, out of the second, the language of France, and out of thethird, Spanish. This initial impulse toward the development of Latin alongdifferent lines in Italy, France, and Spain was, of course, reinforced bydifferences in climate, in the temperaments of the three peoples, intheir modes of life, and in their political and social experiences. Thesecentrifugal forces, so to speak, became effective because the politicaland social bonds which had held Italy, France, and Spain together were nowloosened, and consequently communication between the provinces was lessfrequent, and the standardizing influence of the official Latin of Romeceased to keep Latin a uniform thing throughout the Empire. 

One naturally asks why Latin survived at all, why the languages of thevictorious Germanic peoples gave way to it. In reply to this question itis commonly said that the fittest survived, that the superiority of Romancivilization and of the Latin language gave Latin the victory. So far asthis factor is to be taken into account, I should prefer to say that itwas not so much the superiority of Latin, although that may be freelyrecognized, as it was the sentimental respect which the Germans and theirleaders had for the Empire and for all its institutions. This is shownclearly enough, for instance, in the pride which the Visigothic andFrankish kings showed in holding their commissions from Rome, long afterRome had lost the power to enforce its claims upon them; it is shown intheir use of Latin as the language of the court and of the official world. Under the influence of this sentiment Germanic rulers and their peoplesimitated the Romans, and, among other things, took over their language. The church probably exerted considerable influence in this direction. Manyof the Germans had been converted to Christianity before they entered theEmpire, and had heard Latin used in the church services and in the hymns. Among cultivated people of different countries, it was the only medium ofcommunication, and was accepted as the lingua franca of the political andecclesiastical world, and the traditional medium of expression forliterary and legal purposes. 

Perhaps, however, one element in the situation should be given more weightthan any of the facts just mentioned. Many of the barbarians had beenallowed to settle in a more or less peaceful fashion in Roman territory, so that a large part of the western world came into their possession byway of gradual occupation rather than by conquest. [15] They became peasantproprietors, manual laborers, and soldiers in the Roman army. Perhaps, therefore, their occupation of central and southern Europe bears someresemblance to the peaceful invasion of this country by immigrants fromEurope, and they may have adopted Latin just as the German or Scandinavianadopts English. 

This brings us to the last important point in our inquiry. What is thedate before which we shall call the language of the Western Empire Latin, and after which it is better to speak of French, Spanish, and Italian?Such a line of division cannot be sharply drawn, and will in a measure beartificial, because, as we shall attempt to show in the chapter whichfollows on the "Latin of the Common People, " Latin survives in the Romancelanguages, and has had a continuous life up to the present day. But onpractical grounds it is convenient to have such a line of demarcation inmind, and two attempts have been made to fix it. One attempt has beenbased on linguistic grounds, the other follows political changes moreclosely. Up to 700 A. D. Certain common sound-changes take place in allparts of the western world. [16] After that date, roughly speaking, this isnot the case. Consequently at that time we may say that unity ceased. Theother method of approaching the subject leads to essentially the sameconclusion, and shows us why unity ceased to exist. [17] In the sixthcentury the Eastern Emperor Justinian conceived the idea of reuniting theRoman world, and actually recovered and held for a short time Italy, southern Spain, and Africa. This attempt on his part aroused a nationalspirit among the peoples of these lands, and developed in them a sense oftheir national independence and individuality. They threw off the foreignyoke and became separate peoples, and developed, each of them, a languageof its own. Naturally this sentiment became effective at somewhatdifferent periods in different countries. For France the point may befixed in the sixth century, for Spain and Italy, in the seventh, and atthese dates Latin may be said to take the form of French, Spanish, andItalian. 

The Latin of the Common People

Unless one is a professional philologist he feels little interest in thelanguage of the common people. Its peculiarities in pronunciation, syntax, phraseology, and the use of words we are inclined to avoid in our ownspeech, because they mark a lack of cultivation. We test them by thestandards of polite society, and ignore them, or condemn them, or laugh atthem as abnormal or illogical or indicative of ignorance. So far asliterature goes, the speech of the common people has little interest forus because it is not the recognized literary medium. These two reasonshave prevented the average man of cultivated tastes from giving muchattention to the way in which the masses speak, and only the professionalstudent has occupied himself with their language. This is unfortunatebecause the speech of the common people has many points of interest, and, instead of being illogical, is usually much more rigid in its adherenceto its own accepted principles than formal speech is, which is likely tobe influenced by convention or conventional associations. To take anillustration of what I have in mind, the ending _-s_ is the common mark inEnglish of a plural form. For instance, "caps, " "maps, " "lines, " and"places" are plurals, and the corresponding singular forms are "cap, ""map, " "line, " and "place. " Consequently, granted the underlying premise, it is a perfectly logical and eminently scientific process from the forms"relapse" (pronounced, of course, "relaps") and "species" to postulate acorresponding singular, and speak of "a relap" and "a specie, " as a negroof my acquaintance regularly does. "Scrope" and "lept, " as preterites of"scrape" and "leap, " are correctly formed on the analogy of "broke" and"crept, " but are not used in polite society. 

So far as English, German, or French go, a certain degree of generalinterest has been stimulated lately in the form which they take inevery-day life by two very different agencies, by the popular articles ofstudents of language, and by realistic and dialect novels. But for ourknowledge of the Latin of the common people we lack these twoall-important sources of information. It occurred to only two Romanwriters, Petronius and Apuleius, to amuse their countrymen by writingrealistic stories, or stories with realistic features, and the Romangrammarian felt an even greater contempt for popular Latin or a greaterindifference to it than we feel to-day. This feeling was shared, as weknow, by the great humanists of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, when the revival of interest in the Greek and Latin languages andliteratures begins. Petrarch, Poggio Bracciolini, and the other greatleaders in the movement were concerned with the literary aspects of theclassics, and the scholars of succeeding generations, so far as theystudied the language, confined their attention to that of the great Latinstylists. The first student to conceive of the existence of popular Latinas a form of speech which differed from formal literary Latin, seems tohave been the French scholar, Henri Étienne. In a little pamphlet on thelanguage and style of Plautus, written toward the end of the sixteenthcentury, he noted the likeness between French and the language of theLatin dramatist, without, however, clearly perceiving that the reason forthis similarity lay in the fact that the comedies of Plautus reflect thespoken language of his time, and that French and the other Romancelanguages have developed out of this, rather than from literary Latin. Notuntil the middle of the eighteenth century was this truth clearlyrecognized, and then almost simultaneously on both sides of the Rhine. 

It was left for the nineteenth century, however, to furnish scientificproof of the correctness of this hypothesis, and it was a fitting thingthat the existence of an unbroken line of connection between popular Latinof the third century before our era, and the Romance languages of thenineteenth century, should have been established at the same time by aLatinist engaged in the study of Plautus, and a Romance philologistworking upward toward Latin. The Latin scholar was Ritschl, who showedthat the deviations from the formal standard which one finds in Plautusare not anomalies or mistakes, but specimens of colloquial Latin which canbe traced down into the later period. The Romance philologist was Diez, who found that certain forms and words, especially those from thevocabulary of every-day life, which are common to many of the Romancelanguages, are not to be found in serious Latin literature at all, butoccur only in those compositions, like comedy, satire, or the realisticromance, which reflect the speech of the every-day man. This discoverymade it clear that the Romance languages are related to folk Latin, not toliterary Latin. It is sixty years since the study of vulgar Latin was puton a scientific basis by the investigations of these two men, and duringthat period the Latinist and the Romance philologist have joined hands inextending our knowledge of it. From the Latin side a great impetus wasgiven to the work by the foundation in 1884 of Wölfflin's _Archiv fürlateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik_. This periodical, as is wellknown, was intended to prepare the way for the publication of the Latin_Thesaurus_, which the five German Academies are now bringing out. 

One of its primary purposes, as its title indicates, was to investigatethe history of Latin words, and in its first number the editor calledattention to the importance of knowing the pieces of literature in whicheach Latin word or locution occurred. The results have been veryilluminating. Some words or constructions or phrases are to be found, forinstance, only in comedy, satire, and the romance. They are evidentlypeculiar to vulgar Latin. Others are freely used in these types ofliterature, but sparingly employed in historical or rhetorical works. Hereagain a shade of difference is noticeable between formal and familiarusage. The method of the Latinist then is essentially one of comparisonand contrast. When, for instance, he finds the word _equus_ regularly usedby serious writers for "horse, " but _caballus_ employed in that sense inthe colloquial compositions of Lucilius, Horace, and Petronius, he comesto the conclusion that _caballus_ belongs to the vocabulary of every-daylife, that it is our "nag. "

The line of reasoning which the Romance philologist follows in his studyof vulgar Latin is equally convincing. The existence of a large number ofwords and idioms in French, Spanish, Italian, and the other Romancelanguages can be explained only in one of three ways. All these differentlanguages may have hit on the same word or phrase to express an idea, orthese words and idioms may have been borrowed from one language by theothers, or they may come from a common origin. The first hypothesis isunthinkable. The second is almost as impossible. Undoubtedly French, forinstance, borrowed some words from Spanish, and Spanish from Portuguese. It would be conceivable that a few words originating in Spain should passinto France, and thence into Italy, but it is quite beyond belief that thelarge element which the languages from Spain to Roumania have in commonshould have passed by borrowing over such a wide territory. It is clearthat this common element is inherited from Latin, out of which all theRomance languages are derived. Out of the words, endings, idioms, andconstructions which French, Spanish, Italian, and the other tongues ofsouthern Europe have in common, it would be possible, within certainlimits, to reconstruct the parent speech, but fortunately we are notlimited to this material alone. At this point the Latinist and the Romancephilologist join hands. To take up again the illustration already used, the student of the Romance languages finds the word for "horse" in Italianis cavallo, in Spanish caballo, in French cheval, in Roumanian cal, andso on. Evidently all these forms have come from caballus, which theLatinist finds belongs to the vocabulary of vulgar, not of formal, Latin. This one illustration out of many not only discloses the fact that theRomance languages are to be connected with colloquial rather than withliterary Latin, but it also shows how the line of investigation opened byDiez, and that followed by Wölfflin and his school, supplement each other. By the use of the methods which these two scholars introduced, a largeamount of material bearing on the subject under discussion has beencollected and classified, and the characteristic features of the Latin ofthe common people have been determined. It has been found that five or sixdifferent and independent kinds of evidence may be used in reconstructingthis form of speech. 

We naturally think first of the direct statements made by Latin writers. These are to be found in the writings of Cicero, Quintilian, Seneca theRhetorician, Petronius, Aulus Gellius, Vitruvius, and the Latingrammarians. The professional teacher Quintilian is shocked at theilliterate speech of the spectators in the theatres and circus. Similarlya character in Petronius utters a warning against the words such peopleuse. Cicero openly delights in using every-day Latin in his familiarletters, while the architect Vitruvius expresses the anxious fear that hemay not be following the accepted rules of grammar. As we have noticedabove, a great deal of material showing the differences between formal andcolloquial Latin which these writers have in mind, may be obtained bycomparing, for instance, the Letters of Cicero with his rhetorical works, or Seneca's satirical skit on the Emperor Claudius with his philosophicalwritings. Now and then, too, a serious writer has occasion to use a bit ofpopular Latin, but he conveniently labels it for us with an apologeticphrase. Thus even St. Jerome, in his commentary on the Epistle to theEphesians, says: "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth, as the vulgarproverb has it. " To the ancient grammarians the "mistakes" and vulgarismsof popular speech were abhorrent, and they have fortunately branded listsof words and expressions which are not to be used by cultivated people. The evidence which may be had from the Romance languages, supplemented byLatin, not only contributes to our knowledge of the vocabulary of vulgarLatin, but it also shows us many common idioms and constructions whichthat form of speech had. Thus, "I will sing" in Italian is canterò(=cantar[e]-ho), in Spanish, cantaré (=cantar-he), in French, chanterai(=chanter-ai), and similar forms occur in some of the other Romancelanguages. These forms are evidently made up of the Latin infinitivecantare, depending on habeo ("I have to sing"). But the future in literaryLatin was cantabo, formed by adding an ending, as we know, and with thatthe Romance future can have no connection. However, as a writer in the_Archiv_ has pointed out, [18] just such analytical tense forms as are usedin the Romance languages to-day are to be found in the popular Latinsermons of St. Jerome. From these idioms, common to Italian, French, andSpanish, then, we can reconstruct a Latin formation current among thecommon people. Finally a knowledge of the tendencies and practices ofspoken English helps us to identify similar usages when we come upon themin our reading of Latin. When, for instance, the slave in a play ofPlautus says: "Do you catch on" (tenes?), "I'll touch the old man for aloan" (tangam senem, etc. ), or "I put it over him" (ei os sublevi) werecognize specimens of Latin slang, because all of the metaphors involvedare in current use to-day. When one of the freedmen in Petronius remarks:"You ought not to do a good turn to nobody" (neminem nihil boni facereoportet) we see the same use of the double negative to which we areaccustomed in illiterate English. The rapid survey which we have just madeof the evidence bearing on the subject establishes beyond doubt theexistence of a form of speech among the Romans which cannot be identifiedwith literary Latin, but it has been held by some writers that thematerial for the study of it is scanty. However, an impartial examinationof the facts ought not to lead one to this conclusion. On the Latin sidethe material includes the comedies of Plautus and Terence, and the comicfragments, the familiar odes of Catullus, the satires of Lucilius, Horace, and Seneca, and here and there of Persius and Juvenal, the familiarletters of Cicero, the romance of Petronius and that of Apuleius in part, the Vulgate and some of the Christian fathers, the Journey to Jerusalem ofSt. Ætheria, the glossaries, some technical books like Vitruvius and theveterinary treatise of Chiron, and the private inscriptions, notablyepitaphs, the wall inscriptions of Pompeii, and the leaden tablets foundburied in the ground on which illiterate people wrote curses upon theirenemies. 

It is clear that there has been preserved for the study of colloquialLatin a very large body of material, coming from a great variety ofsources and running in point of time from Plautus in the third centuryB. C. To St. Ætheria in the latter part of the fourth century or later. Itincludes books by trained writers, like Horace and Petronius, whoconsciously adopt the Latin of every-day life, and productions byuneducated people, like St. Ætheria and the writers of epitaphs, who haveunwittingly used it. 

St. Jerome says somewhere of spoken Latin that "it changes constantly asyou pass from one district to another, and from one period to another" (etipsa Latinitas et regionibus cotidie mutatur et tempore). If he had addedthat it varies with circumstances also, he would have included the threefactors which have most to do in influencing the development of anyspoken language. We are made aware of the changes which time has broughtabout in colloquial English when we compare the conversations in Fieldingwith those in a present-day novel. When a spoken language is judged by thestandard of the corresponding literary medium, in some of its aspects itproves to be conservative, in others progressive. It shows itsconservative tendency by retaining many words and phrases which havepassed out of literary use. The English of the Biglow Papers, whencompared with the literary speech of the time, abundantly illustrates thisfact. This conservative tendency is especially noticeable in districtsremote from literary centres, and those of us who are familiar with thevernacular in Vermont or Maine will recall in it many quaint words andexpressions which literature abandoned long ago. In Virginia locutions maybe heard which have scarcely been current in literature sinceShakespeare's time. Now, literary and colloquial Latin were probably drawnfarther apart than the two corresponding forms of speech in English, because Latin writers tried to make the literary tongue as much like Greekin its form as possible, so that literary Latin would naturally havediverged more rapidly and more widely from conversational Latin thanformal English has drawn away from colloquial English. 

But a spoken language in its development is progressive as well asconservative. To certain modifying influences it is especially sensitive. It is fond of the concrete, picturesque, and novel, and has a highappreciation of humor. These tendencies lead it to invent many new wordsand expressions which must wait months, years, perhaps a generation, before they are accepted in literature. Sometimes they are never accepted. The history of such words as buncombe, dude, Mugwump, gerrymander, andjoy-ride illustrate for English the fact that words of a certain kind meeta more hospitable reception in the spoken language than they do inliterature. The writer of comedy or farce, the humorist, and the man inthe street do not feel the constraint which the canons of good usage puton the serious writer. They coin new words or use old words in a new wayor use new constructions without much hesitation. The extraordinarymaterial progress of the modern world during the last century hasundoubtedly stimulated this tendency in a remarkable way, but it wouldseem as if the Latin of the common people from the time of Plautus to thatof Cicero must have been subjected to still more innovating influencesthan modern conversational English has. During this period the newlyconquered territories in Spain, northern Africa, Greece, and Asia pouredtheir slaves and traders into Italy, and added a great many words to thevocabulary of every-day life. The large admixture of Greek words andidioms in the language of Petronius in the first century of our erafurnishes proof of this fact. A still greater influence must have beenfelt within the language itself by the stimulus to the imagination whichthe coming of these foreigners brought, with their new ideas, and theirnew ways of looking at things, their strange costumes, manners, andreligions. 

The second important factor which affects the spoken language is adifference in culture and training. The speech of the gentleman differsfrom that of the rustic. The conversational language of Terence, forinstance, is on a higher plane than that of Plautus, while the charactersin Plautus use better Latin than the freedmen in Petronius. Theilliterate freedmen in Petronius speak very differently from the freemenin his story. Sometimes a particular occupation materially affects thespeech of those who pursue it. All of us know something of the linguisticeccentricities of the London cabman, the Parisian thief, or the Americanhobo. This particular influence cannot be estimated so well for Latinbecause we lack sufficient material, but some progress has been made indetecting the peculiarities of Latin of the nursery, the camp, and thesea. 

Of course a spoken language is never uniform throughout a given area. Dialectal differences are sure to develop. A man from Indiana and anotherfrom Maine will be sure to notice each other's peculiarities. Even therailway, the newspaper, and the public school will never entirelyobliterate the old differences or prevent new ones from springing up. Without these agencies which do so much to promote uniformity to-day, Italy and the rest of the Empire must have shown greater dialectaldifferences than we observe in American English or in British Englisheven. 

For the sake of bringing out clearly some of the points of differencebetween vulgar and formal Latin we have used certain illustrations, like_caballus_, where the two forms of speech were radically opposed to eachother, but of course they did not constitute two different languages, andthat which they had in common was far greater than the element peculiar toeach, or, to put it in another way, they in large measure overlapped eachother. Perhaps we are in a position now to characterize colloquial Latinand to define it as the language which was used in conversation throughoutthe Empire with the innumerable variations which time and place gave it, which in its most highly refined form, as spoken in literary circles atRome in the classical period, approached indefinitely near its ideal, literary Latin, which in its most unconventional phase was the rude speechof the rabble, or the "sermo inconditus" of the ancients. The facts whichhave just been mentioned may be illustrated by the accompanying diagrams. 

[Illustration: Fig. I]

[Illustration: Fig. II]

[Illustration: Fig. III]

[Illustration: Fig. IV]

In Fig. I the heavy-lined ellipse represents the formal diction of Cicero, the dotted line ellipse his conversational vocabulary. They overlap eachother through a great part of their extent, but there are certainliterary locutions which would rarely be used by him in conversation, andcertain colloquial words and phrases which he would not use in formalwriting. Therefore the two ellipses would not be coterminous. In Fig. IIthe heavy ellipse has the same meaning as in Fig. I, while the spaceenclosed by the dotted line represents the vocabulary of an uneducatedRoman, which would be much smaller than that of Cicero and would show agreater degree of difference from the literary vocabulary than Cicero'sconversational stock of words does. The relation of the uncultivatedRoman's conversational vocabulary to that of Cicero is illustrated in Fig. III, while Fig. IV shows how the Latin of the average man in Rome wouldcompare, for instance, with that of a resident of Lugudunum, in Gaul. 

This naturally brings us to consider the historical relations of literaryand colloquial Latin. In explaining them it has often been assumed thatcolloquial Latin is a degenerate form of literary Latin, or that thelatter is a refined type of the former. Both these theories are equallyfalse. Neither is derived from the other. The true state of the case hasnever been better put than by Schuchardt, who says: "Vulgar Latin standswith reference to formal Latin in no derivative relation, in no paternalrelation, but they stand side by side. It is true that vulgar Latin camefrom a Latin with fuller and freer forms, but it did not come from formalLatin. It is true that formal Latin came from a Latin of a more popularand a cruder character, but it did not come from vulgar Latin. In theoriginal speech of the people, preliterary Latin (the prisca Latinitas), is to be found the origin of both; they were twin brothers. "

Of this preliterary Latin we have no record. The best we can do is toinfer what its characteristics were from the earliest fragments of thelanguage which have come down to us, from the laws of the Twelve Tables, for instance, from the religious and legal formulæ preserved to us byVarro, Cicero, Livy, and others, from proverbs and popular sayings. Itwould take us too far afield to analyze these documents here, but it maybe observed that we notice in them, among other characteristics, anindifference to strict grammatical structure, not that subordination ofclauses to a main clause which comes only from an appreciation of thelogical relation of ideas to one another, but a co-ordination of clauses, the heaping up of synonymous words, a tendency to use the analyticalrather than the synthetical form of expression, and a lack of fixity inthe forms of words and in inflectional endings. To illustrate some ofthese traits in a single example, an early law reads "if [he] shall havecommitted a theft by night, if [he] shall have killed him, let him beregarded as put to death legally" (si nox furtum faxsit, si im occisit, iure caesus esto). [19] We pass without warning from one subject, thethief, in the first clause to another, the householder, in the second, andback to the thief again in the third. Cato in his book on Agriculturewrites of the cattle: "let them feed; it will be better" (pascantur;satius erit), instead of saying: "it will be better for them to feed" (or"that they feed"). In an early law one reads: "on the tablet, on the whitesurface" (in tabula, in albo), instead of "on the white tablet" (in albatabula). Perhaps we may sum up the general characteristics of thispreliterary Latin out of which both the spoken and written languagedeveloped by saying that it showed a tendency to analysis rather thansynthesis, a loose and variable grammatical structure, and a lack of logicin expression. 

Livius Andronicus, Nævius, and Plautus in the third century before our erashow the language as first used for literary purposes, and with them thebreach between the spoken and written tongues begins. So far as LiviusAndronicus, the Father of Latin literature, is concerned, allowance shouldbe made without doubt for his lack of poetic inspiration and skill, andfor the fact that his principal work was a translation, but even makingthis allowance the crude character of his Latin is apparent, and it isvery clear that literary Latin underwent a complete transformationbetween his time and that of Horace and Virgil. Now, the significantthing in this connection is the fact that this transformation was largelybrought about under an external influence, which affected the Latin of thecommon people only indirectly and in small measure. Perhaps thecircumstances in which literary Latin was placed have never been repeatedin history. At the very outset it was brought under the sway of a highlydeveloped literary tongue, and all the writers who subsequently used itearnestly strove to model it after Greek. Livius Andronicus, Ennius, Accius, and Pacuvius were all of Greek origin and familiar with Greek. They, as well as Plautus and Terence, translated and adapted Greek epics, tragedies, and comedies. Several of the early writers, like Accius andLucilius, interested themselves in grammatical subjects, and did theirbest to introduce system and regularity into their literary medium. Now, Greek was a highly inflected, synthetical, regular, and logical medium ofliterary expression, and it was inevitable that these qualities should beintroduced into Latin. But this influence affected the spoken languagevery little, as we have already noticed. Its effect upon the speech ofthe common people would be slight, because of the absence of the commonschool which does so much to-day to hold together the spoken and writtenlanguages. 

The development then of preliterary Latin under the influence of thissystematizing, synthetical influence gave rise to literary Latin, whileits independent growth more nearly in accordance with its original geniusproduced colloquial Latin. Consequently, we are not surprised to find thatthe people's speech retained in a larger measure than literary Latin didthose qualities which we noticed in preliterary Latin. Thosecharacteristics are, in fact, to be expected in conversation. When a mansets down his thoughts on paper he expresses himself with care and with acertain reserve in his statements, and he usually has in mind exactly whathe wants to say. But in speaking he is not under this constraint. He islikely to express himself in a tautological, careless, or even illogicalfashion. He rarely thinks out to the end what he has in mind, but looselyadds clauses or sentences, as new ideas occur to him. 

We have just been thinking mainly about the relation of words to oneanother in a sentence. In the treatment of individual words, written andspoken Latin developed along different lines. In English we make littledistinction between the quantity of vowels, but in Latin of course a givenvowel was either long or short, and literary tradition became so fixed inthis matter that the professional poets of the Augustan age do nottolerate any deviation from it. There are indications, however, that thecommon people did not observe the rules of quantity in their integrity. Wecan readily understand why that may have been the case. The comparativecarelessness, which is characteristic of conversation, affects ourpronunciation of words. When there is a stress accent, as there was inLatin, this is especially liable to be the case. We know in English howmuch the unaccented syllables suffer in a long word like "laboratory. " InLatin the long unaccented vowels and the final syllable, which was neverprotected by the accent, were peculiarly likely to lose their full value. As a result, in conversational Latin certain final consonants tended todrop away, and probably the long vowel following a short one was regularlyshortened when the accent fell on the short syllable, or on the syllablewhich followed the long one. Some scholars go so far as to maintain thatin course of time all distinction in quantity in the unaccented vowels waslost in popular Latin. Sometimes the influence of the accent led to theexcision of the vowel in the syllable which followed it. Probus, agrammarian of the fourth century of our era, in what we might call a"Guide to Good Usage"[20] or "One Hundred Words Mispronounced, " warns hisreaders against masclus and anglus for masculus and angulus. This is thesame popular tendency which we see illustrated in "lab'ratory. "

The quality of vowels as well as their quantity changed. The obscuring ofcertain vowel sounds in ordinary or careless conversation in this countryin such words as "Latun" and "Amurican" is a phenomenon which is familiarenough. In fact a large number of our vowel sounds seem to havedegenerated into a grunt. Latin was affected in a somewhat similar way, although not to the same extent as present-day English. Both the ancientgrammarians in their warnings and the Romance languages bear evidence tothis effect. 

We noticed above that the final consonant was exposed to danger by thefact that the syllable containing it was never protected by the accent. Itis also true that there was a tendency to do away with any difficultcombination of consonants. We recall in English the currentpronunciations, "February, " and "Calwell" for Caldwell. The average Romanin the same way was inclined to follow the line of least resistance. Sometimes, as in the two English examples just given, he avoided adifficult combination of consonants by dropping one of them. This methodhe followed in saying santus for sanctus, and scriserunt for scripserunt, just as in vulgar English one now and then hears "slep" and "kep" for themore difficult "slept" and "kept. " Sometimes he lightened thepronunciation by metathesis, as he did when he pronounced interpretor asinterpertor. A third device was to insert a vowel, as illiterateEnglish-speaking people do in the pronunciations "ellum" and "Henery. " Inthis way, for instance, the Roman avoided the difficult combinations -mn-and -chn- by saying mina and techina for the historically correct mna andtechna. Another method of surmounting the difficulty was to assimilate oneof the two consonants to the other. This is a favorite practice of theshop-girl, over which the newspapers make merry in their phoneticalreproductions of supposed conversations heard from behind the counter. Adopting the same easy way of speaking, the uneducated Roman sometimessaid isse for ipse, and scritus for scriptus. To pass to another point ofdifference, the laws determining the incidence of the accent were veryfirmly established in literary Latin. The accent must fall on the penult, if it was long, otherwise on the antepenult of the word. But in popularLatin there were certain classes of words in whose case these principleswere not observed. 

The very nature of the accent probably differed in the two forms ofspeech. In preliterary Latin the stress was undoubtedly a marked featureof the accent, and this continued to be the case in the popular speechthroughout the entire history of the language, but, as I have tried toprove in another paper, [21] in formal Latin the stress became very slight, and the pitch grew to be the characteristic feature of the accent. Consequently, when Virgil read a passage of the _Æneid_ to Augustus andLivia the effect on the ear of the comparatively unstressed language, withthe rhythmical rise and fall of the pitch, would have been very differentfrom that made by the conversation of the average man, with the accentedsyllables more clearly marked by a stress. 

In this brief chapter we cannot attempt to go into details, and inspeaking of the morphology of vulgar Latin we must content ourselves withsketching its general characteristics and tendencies, as we have done inthe case of its phonology. In English our inflectional forms have beenreduced to a minimum, and consequently there is little scope fordifferences in this respect between the written and spoken languages. Fromthe analogy of other forms the illiterate man occasionally says: "I swum, "or, "I clumb, " or "he don't, " but there is little chance of making amistake. However, with three genders, five declensions for nouns, a fixedmethod of comparison for adjectives and adverbs, an elaborate system ofpronouns, with active and deponent, regular and irregular verbs, fourconjugations, and a complex synthetical method of forming the moods andtenses, the pitfalls for the unwary Roman were without number, as thepresent-day student of Latin can testify to his sorrow. That the man inthe street, who had no newspaper to standardize his Latin, and littlechance to learn it in school, did not make more mistakes is surprising. Ina way many of the errors which he did make were historically not errors atall. This fact will readily appear from an illustration or two. In oursurvey of preliterary Latin we had occasion to notice that one of itscharacteristics was a lack of fixity in the use of forms or constructions. In the third century before our era, a Roman could say audibo or audiam, contemplor or contemplo, senatus consultum or senati consultum. Thanks tothe efforts of the scientific grammarian, and to the systematizinginfluence which Greek exerted upon literary Latin, most verbs were madedeponent or active once for all, a given noun was permanently assigned toa particular declension, a verb to one conjugation, and the slighttendency which the language had to the analytical method of forming themoods and tenses was summarily checked. Of course the common people triedto imitate their betters in all these matters, but the old variable usagespersisted to some extent, and the average man failed to grasp theniceties of the new grammar at many points. His failures were especiallynoticeable where the accepted literary form did not seem to follow theprinciples of analogy. When these principles are involved, the commonpeople are sticklers for consistency. The educated man conjugates: "Idon't, " "you don't, " "he doesn't, " "we don't, " "they don't"; but theanomalous form "he doesn't" has to give way in the speech of the averageman to "he don't. " To take only one illustration in Latin of the effect ofthe same influence, the present infinitive active of almost all verbs endsin -re, e. G. , amare, monere, and regere. Consequently the irregularinfinitive of the verb "to be able, " posse, could not stand its ground, and ultimately became potere in vulgar Latin. In one respect in theinflectional forms of the verb, the purist was unexpectedly successful. Incomedy of the third and second centuries B. C. , we find sporadic evidenceof a tendency to use auxiliary verbs in forming certain tenses, as we doin English when we say: "I will go, " "I have gone, " or "I had gone. " Thismovement was thoroughly stamped out for the time, and does not reappearuntil comparatively late. 

In Latin there are three genders, and the grammatical gender of a noun isnot necessarily identical with its natural gender. For inanimate objectsit is often determined simply by the form of the noun. Sella, seat, of thefirst declension, is feminine, because almost all nouns ending in -a arefeminine; hortus, garden, is masculine, because nouns in -us of itsdeclension are mostly masculine, and so on. From such a system as this tworesults are reasonably sure to follow. Where the gender of a noun inliterary Latin did not conform to these rules, in popular Latin it wouldbe brought into harmony with others of its class. Thus stigma, one of thefew neuter nouns in -a, and consequently assigned to the third declension, was brought in popular speech into line with sella and the long list ofsimilar words in -a, was made feminine, and put in the first declension. In the case of another class of words, analogy was supplemented by amechanical influence. We have noticed already that the tendency of thestressed syllable in a word to absorb effort and attention led to theobscuration of certain final consonants, because the final syllable wasnever protected by the accent. Thus hortus in some parts of the Empirebecame hortu in ordinary pronunciation, and the neuter caelum, heaven, became caelu. The consequent identity in the ending led to a confusion inthe gender, and to the ultimate treatment of the word for "heaven" as amasculine. These influences and others caused many changes in the genderof nouns in popular speech, and in course of time brought about theelimination of the neuter gender from the neo-Latin languages. 

Something has been said already of the vocabulary of the common people. Itwas naturally much smaller than that of cultivated people. Its povertymade their style monotonous when they had occasion to express themselvesin writing, as one can see in reading St. Ætheria's account of her journeyto the Holy Land, and of course this impression of monotony is heightenedby such a writer's inability to vary the form of expression. Even withinits small range it differs from the vocabulary of formal Latin in three orfour important respects. It has no occasion, or little occasion, to usecertain words which a formal writer employs, or it uses substitutes forthem. So testa was used in part for caput, and bucca for os. On the otherhand, it employs certain words and phrases, for instance vulgar words andexpletives, which are not admitted into literature. 

In its choice of words it shows a marked preference for certain suffixesand prefixes. It would furnish an interesting excursion into folkpsychology to speculate on the reasons for this preference in one case andanother. Sometimes it is possible to make out the influence at work. Inreading a piece of popular Latin one is very likely to be impressed withthe large number of diminutives which are used, sometimes in the strictsense of the primitive word. The frequency of this usage reminds one inturn of the fact that not infrequently in the Romance languages thecorresponding words are diminutive forms in their origin, so thatevidently the diminutive in these cases crowded out the primitive word inpopular use, and has continued to our own day. The reason why thediminutive ending was favored does not seem far to seek. That suffixproperly indicates that the object in question is smaller than the averageof its kind. Smallness in a child stimulates our affection, in a dwarf, pity or aversion. Now we give expression to our emotion more readily inthe intercourse of every-day life than we do in writing, and the emotionsof the masses are perhaps nearer the surface and more readily stirred thanare those of the classes, and many things excite them which would leaveunruffled the feelings of those who are more conventional. The stirring ofthese emotions finds expression in the use of the diminutive ending, whichindirectly, as we have seen, suggests sympathy, affection, pity, orcontempt. The ending -osus for adjectives was favored because of itssonorous character. Certain prefixes, like de-, dis-, and ex-, were freelyused with verbs, because they strengthened the meaning of the verb, andpopular speech is inclined to emphasize its ideas unduly. 

To speak further of derivation, in the matter of compounds andcrystallized word groups there are usually differences between a spokenand written language. The written language is apt to establish certaincanons which the people do not observe. For instance, we avoid hybridcompounds of Greek and Latin elements in the serious writing of English. In formal Latin we notice the same objection to Greco-Latin words, and yetin Plautus, and in other colloquial writers, such compounds are freelyused for comic effect. In a somewhat similar category belong thecombinations of two adverbs or prepositions, which one finds in the laterpopular Latin, some of which have survived in the Romance languages. Acase in point is ab ante, which has come down to us in the Italian avantiand the French avant. Such word-groups are of course debarred from formalspeech. 

In examining the vocabulary of colloquial Latin, we have noticed itscomparative poverty, its need of certain words which are not required informal Latin, its preference for certain prefixes and suffixes, and itswillingness to violate certain rules, in forming compounds andword-groups, which the written language scrupulously observes. It remainsfor us to consider a third, and perhaps the most important, element ofdifference between the vocabularies of the two forms of speech. I mean theuse of a word in vulgar Latin with another meaning from that which it hasin formal Latin. We are familiar enough with the different senses which aword often has in conversational and in literary English. "Funny, " forinstance, means "amusing" in formal English, but it is often the synonymof "strange" in conversation. The sense of a word may be extended, or berestricted, or there may be a transfer of meaning. In the colloquial useof "funny" we have an extension of its literary sense. The same is true of"splendid, " "jolly, " "lovely, " and "awfully, " and of such Latin words as"lepidus, " "probe, " and "pulchre. " When we speak of "a splendid sun, " weare using splendid in its proper sense of shining or bright, but when wesay, "a splendid fellow, " the adjective is used as a general epithetexpressing admiration. On the other hand, when a man of a certain classrefers to his "woman, " he is employing the word in the restricted sense of"wife. " Perhaps we should put in a third category that very largecolloquial use of words in a transferred or figurative sense, which isillustrated by "to touch" or "to strike" when applied to success ingetting money from a person. Our current slang is characterized by thefree use of words in this figurative way. 

Under the head of syntax we must content ourselves with speaking of onlytwo changes, but these were far-reaching. We have already noticed theanalytical tendency of preliterary Latin. This tendency was held in check, as we have just observed, so far as verb forms were concerned, but in thecomparison of adjectives and in the use of the cases it steadily madeheadway, and ultimately triumphed over the synthetical principle. Themethod adopted by literary Latin of indicating the comparative and thesuperlative degrees of an adjective, by adding the endings -ior and-issimus respectively, succumbed in the end to the practice of prefixingplus or magis and maxime to the positive form. To take anotherillustration of the same characteristic of popular Latin, as early as thetime of Plautus, we see a tendency to adopt our modern method ofindicating the relation which a substantive bears to some other word inthe sentence by means of a preposition rather than by simply using a caseform. The careless Roman was inclined to say, for instance, magna pars deexercitu, rather than to use the genitive case of the word for army, magnapars exercitus. Perhaps it seemed to him to bring out the relation alittle more clearly or forcibly. 

The use of a preposition to show the relation became almost a necessitywhen certain final consonants became silent, because with theirdisappearance, and the reduction of the vowels to a uniform quantity, itwas often difficult to distinguish between the cases. Since final -m waslost in pronunciation, _Asia_ might be nominative, accusative, orablative. If you wished to say that something happened in Asia, it wouldnot suffice to use the simple ablative, because that form would have thesame pronunciation as the nominative or the accusative, Asia(m), but thepreposition must be prefixed, _in Asia_. Another factor cooperated withthose which have already been mentioned in bringing about the confusion ofthe cases. Certain prepositions were used with the accusative to indicateone relation, and with the ablative to suggest another. _In Asia_, forinstance, meant "in Asia, " _in Asiam_, "into Asia. " When the two caseforms became identical in pronunciation, the meaning of the phrase wouldbe determined by the verb in the sentence, so that with a verb of goingthe preposition would mean "into, " while with a verb of rest it would mean"in. " In other words the idea of motion or rest is disassociated from thecase forms. From the analogy of _in_ it was very easy to pass to otherprepositions like _per_, which in literary Latin took the accusative only, and to use these prepositions also with cases which, historicallyspeaking, were ablatives. 

In his heart of hearts the school-boy regards the periodic sentences whichCicero hurled at Catiline, and which Livy used in telling the story ofRome as unnatural and perverse. All the specious arguments which histeacher urges upon him, to prove that the periodic form of expression wasjust as natural to the Roman as the direct method is to us, fail toconvince him that he is not right in his feeling--and he _is_ right. Ofcourse in English, as a rule, the subject must precede the verb, theobject must follow it, and the adverb and attribute adjective must standbefore the words to which they belong. In the sentence: "Octavianus wishedCicero to be saved, " not a single change may be made in the order withoutchanging the sense, but in a language like Latin, where relations arelargely expressed by inflectional forms, almost any order is possible, sothat a writer may vary his arrangement and grouping of words to suit thethought which he wishes to convey. But this is a different matter fromthe construction of a period with its main subject at the beginning, itsmain verb at the end, and all sorts of subordinate and modifying clauseslocked in by these two words. This was not the way in which the Romanstalked with one another. We can see that plainly enough from theconversations in Plautus and Terence. In fact the Latin period is anartificial product, brought to perfection by many generations of literaryworkers, and the nearer we get to the Latin of the common people the morenatural the order and style seem to the English-speaking person. Thespeech of the uneducated freedmen in the romance of Petronius isinteresting in this connection. They not only fail to use the period, butthey rarely subordinate one idea to another. Instead of saying "I saw himwhen he was an ædile, " they are likely to say "I saw him; he was an ædilethen. "

When we were analyzing preliterary Latin, we noticed that theco-ordination of ideas was one of its characteristics, so that this traitevidently persisted in popular speech, while literary Latin became morelogical and complex. 

In the preceding pages we have tried to find out the main features ofpopular Latin. In doing so we have constantly thought of literary Latinas the foil or standard of comparison. Now, strangely enough, no soonerhad the literary medium of expression slowly and painfully disassociateditself from the language of the common people than influences which itcould not resist brought it down again to the level of its humblerbrother. Its integrity depended of course upon the acceptance of certainrecognized standards. But when flourishing schools of literature sprang upin Spain, in Africa, and in Gaul, the paramount authority of Rome and thecommon standard for the Latin world which she had set were lost. When somemen tried to imitate Cicero and Quintilian, and others, Seneca, thereceased to be a common model of excellence. Similarly a careful distinctionbetween the diction of prose and verse was gradually obliterated. Therewas a loss of interest in literature, and professional writers gave lessattention to their diction and style. The appearance of Christianity, too, exercised a profound influence on literary Latin. Christian writers andpreachers made their appeal to the common people rather than to theliterary world. They, therefore, expressed themselves in language whichwould be readily understood by the average man, as St. Jerome franklytells us his purpose was. The result of these influences, and of others, acting on literary Latin, was to destroy its unity and its carefullydeveloped scientific system, and to bring it nearer and nearer in itsgenius to popular Latin, or, to put it in another way, the literary mediumcomes to show many of the characteristics of the spoken language. Gregoryof Tours, writing in the sixth century, laments the fact that he isunfamiliar with grammatical principles, and with this century literaryLatin may be said to disappear. 

As for popular Latin, it has never ceased to exist. It is the language ofFrance, Spain, Italy, Roumania, and all the Romance countries to-day. Itshistory has been unbroken from the founding of Rome to the present time. Various scholars have tried to determine the date before which we shallcall the popular speech vulgar Latin, and after which it may better bestyled French or Spanish or Italian, as the case may be. Some would fixthe dividing line in the early part of the eighth century A. D. , whenphonetic changes common to all parts of the Roman world would cease tooccur. Others would fix it at different periods between the middle of thesixth to the middle of the seventh century, according as each section ofthe old Roman world passed definitely under the control of its Germanicinvaders. The historical relations of literary and colloquial Latin wouldbe roughly indicated by the accompanying diagram, in which preliteraryLatin divides, on the appearance of literature in the third century B. C. , into popular Latin and literary Latin. These two forms of speech developalong independent lines until, in the sixth century, literary Latin ismerged in popular Latin and disappears. The unity for the Latin tonguethus secured was short lived, because within a century the differentiationbegins which gives rise to the present-day Romance languages. 

It may interest some of the readers of this chapter to look over a fewspecimens of vulgar Latin from the various periods of its history. 

(a) The first one is an extract from the Laws of the Twelve Tables. Theoriginal document goes back to the middle of the fifth century B. C. , andshows us some of the characteristics of preliterary Latin. Thenon-periodic form, the omission of pronouns, and the change of subjectwithout warning are especially noticeable. 

"Si in ius vocat, ito. Ni it, antestamino, igitur em (=eum) capito. Sicalvitur pedemve struit, manum endo iacito (=inicito). Si morbus aevitasve(=aetasve) vitium escit, iumentum dato: si nolet, arceram ne sternito. "

[Illustration:

1 Preliterary Latin. 2 Vulgar Latin3 Literary Latin4-8 The Romance languages. 

]

(b) This passage from one of Cicero's letters to his brother (_ad Q. Fr. _ 2, 3, 2) may illustrate the familiar conversational style of agentleman in the first century B. C. It describes an harangue made by thepolitician Clodius to his partisans. 

"Ille furens et exsanguis interrogabat suos in clamore ipso quis esset quiplebem fame necaret. Respondebant operae: 'Pompeius. ' Quem ire vellent. Respondebant: 'Crassum. ' Is aderat tum Miloni animo non amico. Hora ferenona quasi signo dato Clodiani nostros consputare coeperunt. Exarsitdolor. Vrgere illi ut loco nos moverent. "

(c) In the following passage, Petronius, 57, one of the freedmen atTrimalchio's dinner flames out in anger at a fellow-guest whose bearingseems to him supercilious. It shows a great many of the characteristics ofvulgar Latin which have been mentioned in this paper. The similarity ofits style to that of the preliterary specimen is worth observing. Thegreat number of proverbs and bits of popular wisdom are also noticeable. 

"Et nunc spero me sic vivere, ut nemini iocus sim. Homo inter homines sum, capite aperto ambulo; assem aerarium nemini debeo; constitutum habuinunquam; nemo mihi in foro dixit 'redde, quod debes. ' Glebulas emi, lamelullas paravi; viginti ventres pasco et canem; contubernalem meamredemi, ne quis in sinu illius manus tergeret; mille denarios pro capitesolvi; sevir gratis factus sum; spero, sic moriar, ut mortuus nonerubescam. "

(d) This short inscription from Pompeii shows some of the peculiaritiesof popular pronunciation. In ortu we see the same difficulty in knowingwhen to sound the aspirate which the cockney Englishman has. The silenceof the final -m, and the reduction of ae to e are also interesting. Prestami sinceru (=sincerum): si te amet que (=quae) custodit ortu (=hortum)Venus. 

(e) Here follow some of the vulgar forms against which a grammarian, probably of the fourth century, warns his readers. We notice that thepopular "mistakes" to which he calls attention are in (1) syncopation andassimilation, in (2) the use of the diminutive for the primitive, andpronouncing au as o, in (3) the same reduction of ct to t (or tt) which wefind in such Romance forms as Ottobre, in (4) the aspirate falsely added, in (5) syncopation and the confusion of v and b, and in (6) the silence offinal -m. 

 (1) frigida non fricda (2) auris non oricla (3) auctoritas non autoritas (4) ostiae non hostiae (5) vapulo non baplo (6) passim non passi

(f) The following passages are taken from Brunot's "Histoire de lalangue Fraçaise, " p. 144. In the third column the opening sentence of thefamous Oath of Strasburg of 842 A. D. Is given. In the other columns theform which it would have taken at different periods is set down. Thesepassages bring out clearly the unbroken line of descent from Latin tomodern French. 

 The Oath of Strasburg of 842

 Classic Latin

 Per Dei amorem et per christiani populi et nostram communem salutem, ab hac die, quantum Deus scire et posse mini dat, servabo hunc meum fratrem Carolum

 Spoken Latin, Seventh Cent. 

 For deo amore et por chrestyano pob(o)lo et nostro comune salvamento de esto die en avante en quanto Deos sabere et podere me donat, sic salvarayo eo eccesto meon fradre Karlo

 Actual Text

 Pro deo amur et pro christian poblo et nostro commun salvament, d'ist di en avant, in quant Deus savir et podir me dunat, si salvarai eo cist meon fradre Karlo

 French, Eleventh Cent. 

 Por dieu amor et por del crestüen poeple et nostre comun salvement, de cest jorn en avant, quant que Dieus saveir et podeir me donet, si salverai jo cest mien fredre Charlon

 French, Fifteenth Cent. 

 Pour l'amour Dieu et pour le sauvement du chrestien peuple et le nostre commun, de cest jour en avant, quant que Dieu savoir et pouvoir me done, si sauverai je cest mien frere Charle

 Modern French

 Pour l'amour de Dieu et pour le salut commun du peuple chrétien et le nôtre, à partir de ce jour, autant que Dieu m'en donne le savoir et le pouvoir, je soutiendrai mon frère Charles

The Poetry of the Common People of Rome

I. Their Metrical Epitaphs

The old village churchyard on a summer afternoon is a favorite spot withmany of us. The absence of movement, contrasted with the life just outsideits walls, the drowsy humming of the bees in the flowers which grow atwill, the restful gray of the stones and the green of the moss give one afeeling of peace and quiet, while the ancient dates and quaint letteringin the inscriptions carry us far from the hurry and bustle and trivialinterests of present-day life. No sense of sadness touches us. The storieswhich the stones tell are so far removed from us in point of time thateven those who grieved at the loss of the departed have long sincefollowed their friends, and when we read the bits of life history on thecrumbling monuments, we feel only that pleasurable emotion which, asCicero says in one of his letters, comes from our reading in history ofthe little tragedies of men of the past. But the epitaph deals with thecommon people, whom history is apt to forget, and gives us a glimpse oftheir character, their doings, their beliefs, and their views of life anddeath. They furnish us a simple and direct record of the life and theaspirations of the average man, the record of a life not interpreted forus by the biographer, historian, or novelist, but set down in all itssimplicity by one of the common people themselves. 

These facts lend to the ancient Roman epitaphs their peculiar interest andcharm. They give us a glimpse into the every-day life of the people whicha Cicero, or a Virgil, or even a Horace cannot offer us. They must haveexerted an influence, too, on Roman character, which we with our changedconditions can scarcely appreciate. We shall understand this fact if wecall to mind the differences between the ancient practices in the matterof burial and our own. The village churchyard is with us a thing of thepast. Whether on sanitary grounds, or for the sake of quiet and seclusion, in the interest of economy, or not to obtrude the thought of death uponus, the modern cemetery is put outside of our towns, and the memorials init are rarely read by any of us. Our fathers did otherwise. The churchyardof old England and of New England was in the middle of the village, and"short cuts" from one part of the village to another led through itsenclosure. Perhaps it was this fact which tempted our ancestors to setforth their life histories more fully than we do, who know that few, ifany, will come to read them. Or is the world getting more reserved andsophisticated? Are we coming to put a greater restraint upon theexpression of our emotions? Do we hesitate more than our fathers did totalk about ourselves? The ancient Romans were like our fathers in theirwillingness or desire to tell us of themselves. Perhaps the differences intheir burial practices, which were mentioned above, tempted them to becommunicative, and sometimes even garrulous. They put their tombstones ina spot still more frequented than the churchyard. They placed them by theside of the highways, just outside the city walls, where people werecoming or going constantly. Along the Street of Tombs, as one goes out ofPompeii, or along the great Appian Way, which runs from Rome to Capua, Southern Italy and Brundisium, the port of departure for Greece and theOrient, they stand on both sides of the roadway and make their muteappeals for our attention. We know their like in the enclosure about oldTrinity in New York, in the burial ground in New Haven, or in thechurchyards across the water. They tell us not merely the date of birthand death of the deceased, but they let us know enough of his life toinvest it with a certain individuality, and to give it a flavor of itsown. 

Some 40, 000 of them have come down to us, and nearly 2, 000 of theinscriptions upon them are metrical. This particular group is of specialinterest to us, because the use of verse seems to tempt the engraver to gobeyond a bare statement of facts and to philosophize a bit about thepresent and the future. Those who lie beneath the stones still claim somerecognition from the living, for they often call upon the passer-by tohalt and read their epitaphs, and as the Roman walked along the Appian Waytwo thousand years ago, or as we stroll along the same highway to-day, itis in silent converse with the dead. Sometimes the stone itself addressesus, as does that of Olus Granius:[22] "This mute stone begs thee to stop, stranger, until it has disclosed its mission and told thee whose shade itcovers. Here lie the bones of a man, modest, honest, and trusty--thecrier, Olus Granius. That is all. It wanted thee not to be unaware ofthis. Fare thee well. " This craving for the attention of the passer-byleads the composer of one epitaph to use somewhat the same device whichour advertisers employ in the street-cars when they say: "Do not look atthis spot, " for he writes: "Turn not your eyes this way and wish not tolearn our fate, " but two lines later, relenting, he adds: "Now stop, traveller. . . Within this narrow resting-place, "[23] and then we get thewhole story. Sometimes a dramatic, lifelike touch is given by putting theinscription into the form of a dialogue between the dead and those who areleft behind. Upon a stone found near Rome runs the inscription:[24]"Hail, name dear to us, Stephanus, . . . Thy Moschis and thy Diodorus salutethee. " To which the dead man replies: "Hail chaste wife, hail Diodorus, my friend, my brother. " The dead man often begs for a pleasant word fromthe passer-by. The Romans, for instance, who left Ostia by the highway, read upon a stone the sentiment:[25] "May it go well with you who liewithin and, as for you who go your way and read these lines, 'the earthrest lightly on thee' say. " This pious salutation loses some of the flavorof spontaneity in our eyes when we find that it had become so much of aconvention as to be indicated by the initial letters of the several words:S(it) t(ibi) t(erra) l(evis). The traveller and the departed exchange goodwishes on a stone found near Velitræ:[26]

 "May it go well with you who read and you who pass this way, The like to mine and me who on this spot my tomb have built. "

One class of passers-by was dreaded by the dweller beneath the stone--theman with a paint-brush who was looking for a conspicuous spot on which topaint the name of his favorite political candidate. To such an one thehope is expressed "that his ambition may be realized, provided heinstructs his slave not to paint this stone. "[27]

These wayside epitaphs must have left an impress on the mind and characterof the Roman which we can scarcely appreciate. The peasant read them as hetrudged homeward on market days, the gentleman, as he drove to his villaon the countryside, and the traveller who came from the South, the East, or the North. In them the history of his country was set forth in theachievements of her great men, her prætors and consuls, her generals whohad conquered and her governors who had ruled Gaul, Spain, Africa, andAsia. In them the public services, and the deeds of charity of the richand powerful were recorded and the homely virtues and self-sacrifices ofthe humbler man and woman found expression there. Check by jowl with thetomb of some great leader upon whom the people or the emperor had showeredall the titles and honors in their power might stand the stone of the poorphysician, Dionysius, [28] of whom it is said "to all the sick who came tohim he gave his services free of charge; he set forth in his deeds what hetaught in his precepts. "

But perhaps more of the inscriptions in verse, and with them we are hereconcerned, are in praise of women than of men. They make clear to us theplace which women held in Roman life, the state of society, and thefeminine qualities which were held in most esteem. The world which theyportray is quite another from that of Ovid and Juvenal. The common peoplestill hold to the old standards of morality and duty. The degeneracy ofsmart society has made little progress here. The marriage tie is heldsacred; the wife and husband, the parent and child are held close to eachother in bonds of affection. The virtues of women are those whichMartinianus records on the stone of his wife Sofroniola:[29]

"Purity, loyalty, affection, a sense of duty, a yielding nature, andwhatever qualities God has implanted in women. "

 (Castitas fides earitas pietas obsequium Et quaecumque deus faemenis inesse praecepit. )

Upon a stone near Turin, [30] Valerius wrote in memory of his wife thesimple line:

"Pure in heart, modest, of seemly bearing, discreet, noble-minded, andheld in high esteem. "

 (Casta pudica decens sapiens Generosa probata. )

Only one discordant note is struck in this chorus of praise. This fierceinvective stands upon an altar at Rome:[31] "Here for all time has beenset down in writing the shameful record of the freedwoman Acte, ofpoisoned mind, and treacherous, cunning, and hard-hearted. Oh! for a nail, and a hempen rope to choke her, and flaming pitch to burn up her wickedheart. "

A double tribute is paid to a certain Statilia in this naïveinscription:[32] "Thou who wert beautiful beyond measure and true to thyhusbands, didst twice enter the bonds of wedlock. . . And he who came first, had he been able to withstand the fates, would have set up this stone tothee, while I, alas! who have been blessed by thy pure heart and love forthee for sixteen years, lo! now I have lost thee. " Still greater sticklersfor the truth at the expense of convention are two fond husbands whoborrowed a pretty couplet composed in memory of some woman "of tenderage, " and then substituted upon the monuments of their wives the moretruthful phrase "of middle age, "[33] and another man warns women, from thefate of his wife, to shun the excessive use of jewels. [34]

It was only natural that when men came to the end of life they should askthemselves its meaning, should speculate upon the state after death, andshould turn their thoughts to the powers which controlled their destiny. We have been accustomed to form our conceptions of the religion of theRomans from what their philosophers and moralists and poets have writtenabout it. But a great chasm lies between the teachings of these men andthe beliefs of the common people. Only from a study of the epitaphs do weknow what the average Roman thought and felt on this subject. A few yearsago Professor Harkness, in an admirable article on "The Scepticism andFatalism of the Common People of Rome, " showed that "the common peopleplaced no faith in the gods who occupy so prominent a place in Romanliterature, and that their nearest approach to belief in a divinity wastheir recognition of fate, " which "seldom appears as a fixed law ofnature. . . But rather as a blind necessity, depending on chance and not onlaw. " The gods are mentioned by name in the poetic epitaphs only, and forpoetic purposes, and even here only one in fifty of the metricalinscriptions contains a direct reference to any supernatural power. Fornone of these deities, save for Mother Earth, does the writer of anepitaph show any affection. This feeling one may see in the couplet whichreads:[35] "Mother Earth, to thee have we committed the bones ofFortunata, to thee who dost come near to thy children as a mother, " andProfessor Harkness thoughtfully remarks in this connection that "the loveof nature and appreciation of its beauties, which form a distinguishingcharacteristic of Roman literature in contrast to all the otherliteratures of antiquity, are the outgrowth of this feeling of kinshipwhich the Italians entertained for mother earth. "

It is a little surprising, to us on first thought, that the Roman did notinterpose some concrete personalities between himself and this vagueconception of fate, some personal agencies, at least, to carry out thedecrees of destiny. But it will not seem so strange after all when werecall the fact that the deities of the early Italians were without formor substance. The anthropomorphic teachings of Greek literature, art, andreligion found an echo in the Jupiter and Juno, the Hercules and Pan ofVirgil and Horace, but made no impress on the faith of the common people, who, with that regard for tradition which characterized the Romans, followed the fathers in their way of thinking. 

A disbelief in personal gods hardly accords with faith in a life afterdeath, but most of the Romans believed in an existence of some sort in theworld beyond. A Dutch scholar has lately established this fact beyondreasonable doubt, by a careful study of the epitaphs in verse. [36] Onetombstone reads:[37]

 "Into nothing from nothing how quickly we go, "

and another:[38]

 "Once we were not, now we are as we were, "

and the sentiment, "I was not, I was, I am not, I care not" (non fui, fui, non sum, non euro) was so freely used that it is indicated now and thenmerely by the initial letters N. F. F. N. S. N. C. , but compared with the greatnumber of inscriptions in which belief in a life after death findsexpression such utterances are few. But how and where that life was to bepassed the Romans were in doubt. We have noticed above how little thecommon people accepted the belief of the poets in Jupiter and Pluto andthe other gods, or rather how little their theology had been influenced byGreek art and literature. In their conception of the place of abode afterdeath, it is otherwise. Many of them believe with Virgil that it liesbelow the earth. As one of them says in his epitaph:[39]

 "No sorrow to the world below I bring. "

Or with other poets the departed are thought of as dwelling in the Elysianfields or the Isles of the Blessed. As one stone cries out to thepasser-by:[40] "May you live who shall have said. 'She lives in Elysium, '"and of a little girl it is said:[41] "May thy shade flower in fieldsElysian. " Sometimes the soul goes to the sky or the stars: "Here lies thebody of the bard Laberius, for his spirit has gone to the place fromwhich it came;"[42] "The tomb holds my limbs, my soul shall pass to thestars of heaven. "[43] But more frequently the departed dwell in the tomb. As one of them expresses it: "This is my eternal home; here have I beenplaced; here shall I be for aye. " This belief that the shade hovers aboutthe tomb accounts for the salutations addressed to it which we havenoticed above, and for the food and flowers which are brought to satisfyits appetites and tastes. These tributes to the dead do not seem to accordwith the current Roman belief that the body was dissolved to dust, andthat the soul was clothed with some incorporeal form, but the Romans wereno more consistent in their eschatology than many of us are. 

Perhaps it was this vague conception of the state after death whichdeprived the Roman of that exultant joy in anticipation of the worldbeyond which the devout Christian, a hundred years or more ago, expressedin his epitaphs, with the Golden City so clearly pictured to his eye, andby way of compensation the Roman was saved from the dread of death, forno judgment-seat confronted him in the other world. The end of life wasawaited with reasonable composure. Sometimes death was welcomed because itbrought rest. As a citizen of Lambsesis expresses it:[44] "Here is my homeforever; here is a rest from toil;" and upon a woman's stone we read:[45]

 "Whither hast thou gone, dear soul, seeking rest from troubles, For what else than trouble hast thou had throughout thy life?"

But this pessimistic view of life rarely appears on the monuments. Notinfrequently the departed expresses a certain satisfaction with his life'srecord, as does a citizen of Beneventum, who remarks:[46] "No man have Iwronged, to many have I rendered services, " or he tells us of the pleasurewhich he has found in the good things of life, and advises us to enjoythem. A Spanish epitaph reads:[47] "Eat, drink, enjoy thyself, follow me"(es bibe lude veni). In a lighter or more garrulous vein another says:[48]"Come, friends, let us enjoy the happy time of life; let us dine merrily, while short life lasts, mellow with wine, in jocund intercourse. Allthese about us did the same while they were living. They gave, received, and enjoyed good things while they lived. And let us imitate the practicesof the fathers. Live while you live, and begrudge nothing to the dear soulwhich Heaven has given you. " This philosophy of life is expressed verysuccinctly in: "What I have eaten and drunk I have with me; what I haveforegone I have lost, "[49] and still more concretely in:

 "Wine and amours and baths weaken our bodily health, Yet life is made up of wine and amours and baths. "[50]

Under the statue of a man reclining and holding a cup in his hand, FlaviusAgricola writes:[51] "Tibur was my native place; I was called Agricola, Flavius too. . . . I who lie here as you see me. And in the world above inthe years which the fates granted, I cherished my dear soul, nor did thegod of wine e'er fail me. . . . Ye friends who read this, I bid you mix yourwine, and before death comes, crown your temples with flowers, anddrink. . . . All the rest the earth and fire consume after death. " Probablywe should be wrong in tracing to the teachings of Epicurus, even in theirvulgarized popular form, the theory that the value of life is to beestimated by the material pleasure it has to offer. A man's theory of lifeis largely a matter of temperament or constitution. He may find supportfor it in the teachings of philosophy, but he is apt to choose aphilosophy which suits his way of thinking rather than to let his views oflife be determined by abstract philosophic teachings. The men whoseepitaphs we have just read would probably have been hedonists if Epicurushad never lived. It is interesting to note in passing that holding thisconception of life naturally presupposes the acceptance of one of thenotions of death which we considered above--that it ends all. 

In another connection, a year or two ago, I had occasion to speak of theliterary merit of some of these metrical epitaphs, [52] of their interestfor us as specimens of the literary compositions of the common people, andof their value in indicating the æsthetic taste of the average Roman. Itmay not be without interest here to speak of the literary form of some ofthem a little more at length than was possible in that connection. Latinhas always been, and continues to be among modern peoples, a favoredlanguage for epitaphs and dedications. The reasons why it holds itsfavored position are not far to seek. It is vigorous and concise. Thenagain in English and in most modern languages the order which words maytake in a given sentence is in most cases inexorably fixed by grammaticalnecessity. It was not so with Latin. Its highly inflected character madeit possible, as we know, to arrange the words which convey an idea invarious orders, and these different groupings of the same words gavedifferent shades of meaning to the sentence, and different emotionaleffects are secured by changing the sequence in which the minorconceptions are presented. By putting contrasted words side by side, or atcorresponding points in the sentence, the impression is heightened. When acomposition takes the form of verse the possibilities in the way ofcontrast are largely increased. The high degree of perfection to whichHorace brought the balancing and interlocking of ideas in some of hisOdes, illustrates the great advantage which the Latin poet had over theEnglish writer because of the flexibility of the medium of expressionwhich he used. This advantage was the Roman's birthright, and lends acertain distinction even to the verses of the people, which we arediscussing here. Certain other stylistic qualities of these metricalepitaphs, which are intended to produce somewhat the same effects, willnot seem to us so admirable. I mean alliteration, play upon words, theacrostic arrangement, and epigrammatic effects. These literary tricks findlittle place in our serious verse, and the finer Latin poets rarelyindulge in them. They seem to be especially out of place in an epitaph, which should avoid studied effects and meretricious devices. But writersin the early stages of a literature and common people of all periods finda pleasure in them. Alliteration, onomatopœia, the pun, and the play onwords are to be found in all the early Latin poets, and they areespecially frequent with literary men like Plautus and Terence, Pacuviusand Accius, who wrote for the stage, and therefore for the common people. One or two illustrations of the use of these literary devices may besufficient. A little girl at Rome, who died when five years old, bore thestrange name of Mater, or Mother, and on her tombstone stands thesentiment:[53] "Mater I was by name, mater I shall not be by law. ""Sepulcrum hau pulcrum pulcrai feminae" of the famous Claudiainscription, [54] Professor Lane cleverly rendered "Site not sightly of asightly dame. " Quite beyond my power of translating into English, so as toreproduce its complicated play on words, is the appropriate epitaph of therhetorician, Romanius lovinus:[55]

 "Docta loqui doctus quique loqui docuit. "

A great variety of verses is used in the epitaphs, but the dactylichexameter and the elegiac are the favorites. The stately character of thehexameter makes it a suitable medium in which to express a serioussentiment, while the sudden break in the second verse of the elegiaccouplet suggests the emotion of the writer. The verses are constructedwith considerable regard for technique. Now and then there is a falsequantity, an unpleasant sequence, or a heavy effect, but such blemishesare comparatively infrequent. There is much that is trivial, commonplace, and prosaic in these productions of the common people, but now and thenone comes upon a phrase, a verse, or a whole poem which shows strength orgrace or pathos. An orator of the late period, not without vigor, writesupon his tombstone:[56] "I have lived blessed by the gods, by friends, byletters. "

 (Vixi beatus dis, amicis, literis. )

A rather pretty, though not unusual, sentiment occurs in an elegiaccouplet to a young girl, [57] in which the word amoena is the adjective, meaning "pleasant to see, " in the first, while in the second verse it isthe girl's name: "As a rose is amoena when it blooms in the early springtime, so was I Amoena to those who saw me. "

 (Ut rosa amoena homini est quom primo tempore floret. Quei me viderunt, seic Amoena fui. )

There is a touch of pathos in the inscription which a mother put on thestone of her son:[58] "A sorrowing mother has set up this monument to ason who has never caused her any sorrow, except that he is no more, " andin this tribute of a husband:[59] "Out of my slender means now that theend has come, my wife, all that I could do, this gift, a small small onefor thy deserts, have I made. " The epitaph of a little girl, namedFelicia, or Kitty, has this sentiment in graceful verse:[60] "Rest lightlyupon thee the earth, and over thy grave the fragrant balsam grow, androses sweet entwine thy buried bones. " Upon the stone of a little girl whobore the name of Xanthippe, and the nickname Iaia, is an inscription withone of two pretty conceits and phrases. With it we may properly bring toan end our brief survey of these verses of the common people of Rome. In asomewhat free rendering it reads in part:[61] "Whether the thought ofdeath distress thee or of life, read to the end. Xanthippe by name, ycleptalso Iaia by way of jest, escapes from sorrow since her soul from the bodyflies. She rests here in the soft cradle of the earth, . . . Comely, charming, keen of mind, gay in discourse. If there be aught of compassionin the gods above, bear her to the sun and light. "

II. Their Dedicatory and Ephemeral Verses

In the last paper we took up for consideration some of the Roman metricalepitaphs. These compositions, however, do not include all the productionsin verse of the common people of Rome. On temples, altars, bridges, statues, and house walls, now and then, we find bits of verse. Most of theextant dedicatory lines are in honor of Hercules, Silvanus, Priapus, andthe Cæsars. Whether the two famous inscriptions to Hercules by the sons ofVertuleius and by Mummius belong here or not it is hard to say. At allevents, they were probably composed by amateurs, and have a peculiarinterest for us because they belong to the second century B. C. , andtherefore stand near the beginning of Latin letters; they show us thelanguage before it had been perfected and adapted to literary purposes byan Ennius, a Virgil, and a Horace, and they are written in the old nativeSaturnian verse, into which Livius Andronicus, "the Father of Latinliterature, " translated the Odyssey. Consequently they show us thelanguage before it had gained in polish and lost in vigor under theinfluence of the Greeks. The second of these two little poems is afinger-post, in fact, at the parting of the ways for Roman civilization. It was upon a tablet let into the wall of the temple of Hercules, andcommemorates the triumphant return to Rome of Mummius, the conqueror ofCorinth. It points back to the good old days of Roman contempt for Greekart, and ignorance of it, for Mummius, in his stupid indifference to thebeautiful monuments of Corinth, made himself the typical Philistine forall time. It points forward to the new Greco-Roman civilization of Italy, because the works of art which Mummius is said to have brought back withhim, and the Greeks who probably followed in his train, augmented thatstream of Greek influence which in the next century or two swept throughthe peninsula. 

In the same primitive metre as these dedications is the Song of the ArvalBrothers, which was found engraved on a stone in the grove of the goddessDea Dia, a few miles outside of Rome. This hymn the priests sang at theMay festival of the goddess, when the farmers brought them the firstfruits of the earth. It has no intrinsic literary merit, but it carries usback beyond the great wars with Carthage for supremacy in the westernMediterranean, beyond the contest with Pyrrhus for overlordship inSouthern Italy, beyond the struggle for life with the Samnites in CentralItaly, beyond even the founding of the city on the Tiber, to a people wholived by tilling the soil and tending their flocks and herds. 

But we have turned away from the dedicatory verses. On the bridges whichspan our streams we sometimes record the names of the commissioners or theengineers, or the bridge builders responsible for the structure. Perhapswe are wise in thinking these prosaic inscriptions suitable for our uglyiron bridges. Their more picturesque stone structures tempted the Romansnow and then to drop into verse, and to go beyond a bare statement of thefacts of construction. Over the Anio in Italy, on a bridge which Narses, the great general of Justinian, restored, the Roman, as he passed, read ingraceful verse:[62] "We go on our way with the swift-moving waters of thetorrent beneath our feet, and we delight on hearing the roar of the angrywater. Go then joyfully at your ease, Quirites, and let the echoingmurmur of the stream sing ever of Narses. He who could subdue theunyielding spirit of the Goths has taught the rivers to bear a sternyoke. "

It is an interesting thing to find that the prettiest of the dedicatorypoems are in honor of the forest-god Silvanus. One of these poems, TitusPomponius Victor, the agent of the Cæsars, left inscribed upon atablet[63] high up in the Grecian Alps. It reads: "Silvanus, half-enclosedin the sacred ash-tree, guardian mighty art thou of this pleasaunce in theheights. To thee we consecrate in verse these thanks, because across thefields and Alpine tops, and through thy guests in sweetly smelling groves, while justice I dispense and the concerns of Cæsar serve, with thyprotecting care thou guidest us. Bring me and mine to Rome once more, andgrant that we may till Italian fields with thee as guardian. In guerdontherefor will I give a thousand mighty trees. " It is a pretty picture. This deputy of Cæsar has finished his long and perilous journeys throughthe wilds of the North in the performance of his duties. His face is nowturned toward Italy, and his thoughts are fixed on Rome. In this "littlegarden spot, " as he calls it, in the mountains he pours out his gratitudeto the forest-god, who has carried him safely through dangers and broughthim thus far on his homeward way, and he vows a thousand trees to hisprotector. It is too bad that we do not know how the vow was to bepaid--not by cutting down the trees, we feel sure. One line of Victor'slittle poem is worth quoting in the original. He thanks Silvanus forconducting him in safety "through the mountain heights, and through Tuiqueluci suave olentis hospites. " Who are the _hospites_? The wild beasts ofthe forests, we suppose. Now _hospites_ may, of course, mean either"guests" or "hosts, " and it is a pretty conceit of Victor's to think ofthe wolves and bears as the guests of the forest-god, as we have venturedto render the phrase in the translation given above. Or, are they Victor'shosts, whose characters have been so changed by Silvanus that Victor hashad friendly help rather than fierce attacks from them?

A very modern practice is revealed by a stone found near the famous templeof Æsculapius, the god of healing, at Epidaurus in Argolis, upon whichtwo ears are shown in relief, and below them the Latin couplet:[64] "Longago Cutius Gallus had vowed these ears to thee, scion of Phœbus, and nowhe has put them here, for thou hast healed his ears. " It is an ancientex-voto, and calls to mind on the one hand the cult of Æsculapius, whichWalter Pater has so charmingly portrayed in Marius the Epicurean, and onthe other hand it shows us that the practice of setting up ex-votos, ofwhich one sees so many at shrines and in churches across the water to-day, has been borrowed from the pagans. A pretty bit of sentiment is suggestedby an inscription[65] found near the ancient village of Ucetia in SouthernFrance: "This shrine to the Nymphs have I built, because many times andoft have I used this spring when an old man as well as a youth. "

All of the verses which we have been considering up to this point havecome down to us more or less carefully engraved upon stone, in honor ofsome god, to record some achievement of importance, or in memory of adeparted friend. But besides these formal records of the past, we find agreat many hastily scratched or painted sentiments or notices, which havea peculiar interest for us because they are the careless effusions orunstudied productions of the moment, and give us the atmosphere ofantiquity as nothing else can do. The stuccoed walls of the houses, andthe sharp-pointed stylus which was used in writing on wax tablets offeredtoo strong a temptation for the lounger or passer-by to resist. To peopleof this class, and to merchants advertising their wares, we owe the threethousand or more graffiti found at Pompeii. The ephemeral inscriptionswhich were intended for practical purposes, such as the election notices, the announcements of gladiatorial contests, of houses to rent, of articleslost and for sale, are in prose, but the lovelorn lounger inscribed hissentiments frequently in verse, and these verses deserve a passing noticehere. One man of this class in his erotic ecstasy writes on the wall of aPompeian basilica:[66] "May I perish if I'd wish to be a god withoutthee. " That hope sprang eternal in the breast of the Pompeian lover isillustrated by the last two lines of this tragic declaration:[67]

 "If you can and won't, Give me hope no more. Hope you foster and you ever Bid me come again to-morrow. Force me then to die Whom you force to live A life apart from you. Death will be a boon, Not to be tormented. Yet what hope has snatched away To the lover hope gives back. "

This effusion has led another passer-by to write beneath it the Delphicsentiment: "May the man who shall read this never read anything else. " Thesymptoms of the ailment in its most acute form are described by some Romanlover in the verses which he has left us on the wall of Caligula's palace, on the Palatine:[68]

 "No courage in my heart, No sleep to close my eyes, A tide of surging love Throughout the day and night. "

This seems to come from one who looks upon the lover with a sympatheticeye, but who is himself fancy free:

 "Whoever loves, good health to him, And perish he who knows not how, But doubly ruined may he be Who will not yield to love's appeal. "[69]

The first verse of this little poem, "Quisquis amat valeat, pereat qui nescit amare, "

represented by the first couplet of the English rendering, calls to mindthe swinging refrain which we find a century or two later in the_Pervigilium Veneris_, that last lyrical outburst of the pagan world, written for the eve of the spring festival of Venus:

 "Cras amet qui nunquam amavit quique amavit eras amet. "

 (To-morrow he shall love who ne'er has loved And who has loved, to-morrow he shall love. )

An interesting study might be made of the favorite types of femininebeauty in the Roman poets. Horace sings of the "golden-haired" Pyrrhas, and Phyllises, and Chloes, and seems to have had an admiration forblondes, but a poet of the common people, who has recorded his opinion onthis subject in the atrium of a Pompeian house, shows a more catholictaste, although his freedom of judgment is held in some constraint:

 "My fair girl has taught me to hate Brunettes with their tresses of black. I will hate if I can, but if not, 'Gainst my will I must love them also. "[70]

On the other hand, one Pompeian had such an inborn dread of brunettesthat, whenever he met one, he found it necessary to take an appropriateantidote, or prophylactic:

 "Whoever loves a maiden dark By charcoal dark is he consumed. When maiden dark I light upon I eat the saving blackberry. "[71]

These amateur poets do not rely entirely upon their own Muse, but borrowfrom Ovid, Propertius, or Virgil, when they recall sentiments in thosewriters which express their feelings. Sometimes it is a tag, or a line, ora couplet which is taken, but the borrowings are woven into the contextwith some skill. The poet above who is under compulsion from his blondesweetheart, has taken the second half of his production verbatim fromOvid, and for the first half of it has modified a line of Propertius. Other writers have set down their sentiments in verse on more prosaicsubjects. A traveller on his way to the capital has scribbled these lineson the wall, perhaps of a wine-shop where he stopped for refreshment:[72]

 "Hither have we come in safety. Now I hasten on my way, That once more it may be mine To behold our Lares, Rome. "

At one point in a Pompeian street, the eye of a straggler would catch thisnotice in doggerel verse:[73]

 "Here's no place for loafers. Lounger, move along!"

On the wall of a wine-shop a barmaid has thus advertised her wares:[74]

 "Here for a cent is a drink, Two cents brings something still better. Four cents in all, if you pay, Wine of Falernum is yours. "

It must have been a lineal descendant of one of the parasites of Plautuswho wrote:[75]

 "A barbarian he is to me At whose house I'm not asked to dine. "

Here is a sentiment which sounds very modern:

 "The common opinion is this: That property should be divided. "[76]

This touch of modernity reminds one of another group of verses whichbrings antiquity into the closest possible touch with some present-daypractices. The Romans, like ourselves, were great travellers andsightseers, and the marvels of Egypt in particular appealed to them, asthey do to us, with irresistible force. Above all, the great statue ofMemnon, which gave forth a strange sound when it was struck by the firstrays of the rising sun, drew travellers from far and near. Those of us whoknow the Mammoth Cave, Niagara Falls, the Garden of the Gods, or someother of our natural wonders, will recall how fond a certain class ofvisitors are of immortalizing themselves by scratching their names or asentiment on the walls or the rocks which form these marvels. Suchinscriptions We find on the temple walls in Egypt--three of them appearon the statue of Memnon, recording in verse the fact that the writers hadvisited the statue and heard the voice of the god at sunrise. One of theseEgyptian travellers, a certain Roman lady journeying up the Nile, hasscratched these verses on a wall of the temple at Memphis:[77]

 "The pyramids without thee have I seen, My brother sweet, and yet, as tribute sad, The bitter tears have poured adown my cheek, And sadly mindful of thy absence now I chisel here this melancholy note. "

Then follow the name and titles of the absent brother, who is better knownto posterity from these scribbled lines of a Cook's tourist than from anyofficial records which have come down to us. All of these pieces ofpopular poetry which we have been discussing thus far were engraved onstone, bronze, stucco, or on some other durable material. A very few bitsof this kind of verse, from one to a half dozen lines in length, have comedown to us in literature. They have the unique distinction, too, of beingspecimens of Roman folk poetry, and some of them are found in the mostunlikely places. Two of them are preserved by a learned commentator onthe Epistles of Horace. They carry us back to our school-boy days. When weread

 "The plague take him who's last to reach me, "[78]

we can see the Roman urchin standing in the market-place, chanting themagic formula, and opposite him the row of youngsters on tiptoe, each onewaiting for the signal to run across the intervening space and be thefirst to touch their comrade. What visions of early days come back tous--days when we clasped hands in a circle and danced about one or twochildren placed in the centre of the ring, and chanted in unison somerefrain, upon reading in the same commentator to Horace a ditty whichruns:[79]

 "King shall you be If you do well. If you do ill You shall not be. "

The other bits of Roman folk poetry which we have are most of thempreserved by Suetonius, the gossipy biographer of the Cæsars. They recallvery different scenes. Cæsar has returned in triumph to Rome, bringing inhis train the trousered Gauls, to mingle on the street with the toga-cladRomans. He has even had the audacity to enroll some of these strangepeoples in the Roman senate, that ancient body of dignity and convention, and the people chant in the streets the ditty:[80]

 "Cæsar leads the Gauls in triumph, In the senate too he puts them. Now they've donned the broad-striped toga And have laid aside their breeches. "

Such acts as these on Cæsar's part led some political versifier to writeon Cæsar's statue a couplet which contrasted his conduct with that of thefirst great republican, Lucius Brutus:

 "Brutus drove the kings from Rome, And first consul thus became. This man drove the consuls out, And at last became the king. "[81]

We may fancy that these verses played no small part in spurring on MarcusBrutus to emulate his ancestor and join the conspiracy against thetyrant. With one more bit of folk poetry, quoted by Suetonius, we maybring our sketch to an end. Germanicus Cæsar, the flower of the imperialfamily, the brilliant general and idol of the people, is suddenly strickenwith a mortal illness. The crowds throng the streets to hear the latestnews from the sick-chamber of their hero. Suddenly the rumor flies throughthe streets that the crisis is past, that Germanicus will live, and thecrowds surge through the public squares chanting:

 "Saved now is Rome, Saved too the land, Saved our Germanicus. "[82]

The Origin of the Realistic Romance among the Romans

One of the most fascinating and tantalizing problems of literary historyconcerns the origin of prose fiction among the Romans. We can trace thegrowth of the epic from its infancy in the third century before Christ asit develops in strength in the poems of Nævius, Ennius, and Cicero untilit reaches its full stature in the _Æneid_, and then we can see thedecline of its vigor in the _Pharsalia_, the _Punica_, the _Thebais_, and_Achilleis_, until it practically dies a natural death in the mythologicaland historical poems of Claudian. The way also in which tragedy, comedy, lyric poetry, history, biography, and the other types of literature inprose and verse came into existence and developed among the Romans can befollowed with reasonable success. But the origin and early history of thenovel is involved in obscurity. The great realistic romance of Petroniusof the first century of our era is without a legally recognized ancestorand has no direct descendant. The situation is the more surprising when werecall its probable size in its original form. Of course only a part of ithas come down to us, some one hundred and ten pages in all. Its great sizeprobably proved fatal to its preservation in its complete form, or atleast contributed to that end, for it has been estimated that it ran fromsix hundred to nine hundred pages, being longer, therefore, than theaverage novel of Dickens and Scott. Consequently we are not dealing with abit of ephemeral literature, but with an elaborate composition of a highdegree of excellence, behind which we should expect to find a long line ofdevelopment. We are puzzled not so much by the utter absence of anythingin the way of prose fiction before the time of Petronius as by thedifficulty of establishing any satisfactory logical connection betweenthese pieces of literature and the romance of Petronius. We arebewildered, in fact, by the various possibilities which the situationpresents. The work shows points of similarity with several antecedentforms of composition, but the gaps which lie in any assumed line ofdescent are so great as to make us question its correctness. 

If we call to mind the present condition of this romance and thosecharacteristic features of it which are pertinent to the question atissue, the nature of the problem and its difficulty also will be apparentat once. Out of the original work, in a rather fragmentary form, only fouror five main episodes are extant, one of which is the brilliant story ofthe Dinner of Trimalchio. The action takes place for the most part inSouthern Italy, and the principal characters are freedmen who have madetheir fortunes and degenerate freemen who are picking up a precariousliving by their wits. The freemen, who are the central figures in thenovel, are involved in a great variety of experiences, most of them of adisgraceful sort, and the story is a story of low life. Women play animportant rôle in the narrative, more important perhaps than they do inany other kind of ancient literature--at least their individuality is moremarked. The efficient motif is erotic. I say the efficient, because theconventional motif which seems to account for all the misadventures of theanti-hero Encolpius is the wrath of an offended deity. A great part ofthe book has an atmosphere of satire about it which piques our curiosityand baffles us at the same time, because it is hard to say how much ofthis element is inherent in the subject itself, and how much of it lies inthe intention of the author. It is the characteristic of parvenu societyto imitate smart society to the best of its ability, and its socialfunctions are a parody of the like events in the upper set. The story of adinner party, for instance, given by such a _nouveau riche_ as Trimalchio, would constantly remind us by its likeness and its unlikeness, by its sinsof omission and commission, of a similar event in correct society. Inother words, it would be a parody on a proper dinner, even if the man whodescribed the event knew nothing about the usages of good society, andwith no ulterior motive in mind set down accurately the doings of hisupstart characters. For instance, when Trimalchio's chef has three whitepigs driven into the dining-room for the ostensible purpose of allowingthe guests to pick one out for the next course, with the memory of our ownmonkey breakfasts and horseback dinners in mind, we may feel that this isa not improbable attempt on the part of a Roman parvenu to imitate hisbetters in giving a dinner somewhat out of the ordinary. Members of thesmart set at Rome try to impress their guests by the value and weight oftheir silver plate. Why shouldn't the host of our story adopt the moredirect and effective way of accomplishing the same object by having theweight of silver engraved on each article? He does so. It is a verynatural thing for him to do. In good society they talk of literature andart. Why isn't it natural for Trimalchio to turn the conversation into thesame channels, even if he does make Hannibal take Troy and does confusethe epic heroes and some late champions of the gladiatorial ring?

In other words, much of that which is satirical in Petronius is so onlybecause we are setting up in our minds a comparison between the doings ofhis rich freedmen and the requirements of good taste and moderation. Butit seems possible to detect a satirical or a cynical purpose on the partof the author carried farther than is involved in the choice of hissubject and the realistic presentation of his characters. Petronius seemsto delight in putting his most admirable sentiments in the mouths ofcontemptible characters. Some of the best literary criticism we have ofthe period, he presents through the medium of the parasite rhetoricianAgamemnon. That happy phrase characterizing Horace's style, "curiosafelicitas, " which has perhaps never been equalled in its brevity andappositeness, is coined by the incorrigible poetaster Eumolpus. It is hetoo who composes and recites the two rather brilliant epic poemsincorporated into the _Satirae_, one of which is received with a shower ofstones by the bystanders. The impassioned eulogy of the careers ofDemocritus, Chrysippus, Lysippus, and Myron, who had endured hunger, pain, and weariness of body and mind for the sake of science, art, and the goodof their fellow-men, and the diatribe against the pursuit of comfort andpleasure which characterized the people of his own time, are put in themouth of the same _roué_ Eumolpus. 

These situations have the true Horatian humor about them. The most seriousand systematic discourse which Horace has given us, in his Satires, on theart of living, comes from the crack-brained Damasippus, who has made afailure of his own life. In another of his poems, after having set forthat great length the weaknesses of his fellow-mortals, Horace himself isconvicted of being inconsistent, a slave to his passions, and a victim ofhot temper by his own slave Davus. We are reminded again of the literarymethod of Horace in his Satires when we read the dramatic description ofthe shipwreck in Petronius. The blackness of night descends upon thewater; the little bark which contains the hero and his friends is at themercy of the sea; Lichas, the master of the vessel, is swept from the deckby a wave, Encolpius and his comrade Giton prepare to die in each other'sembrace, but the tragic scene ends with a ridiculous picture of Eumolpusbellowing out above the roar of the storm a new poem which he is settingdown upon a huge piece of parchment. Evidently Petronius has the samedread of being taken too seriously which Horace shows so often in hisSatires. The cynical, or at least unmoral, attitude of Petronius isbrought out in a still more marked way at the close of this same passage. Of those upon the ill-fated ship the degenerates Encolpius, Giton, andEumolpus, who have wronged Lichas irreparably, escape, while the piousLichas meets a horrible death. All this seems to make it clear that notonly does the subject which Petronius has treated inevitably involve asatire upon contemporary society, but that the author takes a satirical orcynical attitude toward life. 

Another characteristic of the story is its realism. There are nomarvellous adventures, and in fact no improbable incidents in it. Theauthor never obtrudes his own personality upon us, as his successorApuleius sometimes does, or as Thackeray has done. We know what the peoplein the story are like, not from the author's description of them, but fromtheir actions, from the subjects about which they talk, and from the wayin which they talk. Agamemnon converses as a rhetorician might talk, Habinnas like a millionnaire stone-cutter, and Echion like a rag-dealer, and their language and style are what we should expect from men of theirstanding in society and of their occupations. The conversations ofTrimalchio and his freedmen guests are not witty, and their jests are notclever. This adherence to the true principles of realism is the morenoteworthy in the case of so brilliant a writer as Petronius, and those ofus who recall some of the preternaturally clever conversations in thepages of Henry James and other contemporary novelists may feel that inthis respect he is a truer artist than they are. 

The novel of Petronius has one other characteristic which is significant, if we attempt to trace the origin of this type of literature. It is castin the prose-poetic form, that is, passages in verse are inserted here andthere in the narrative. In a few cases they are quoted, but for the mostpart they are the original compositions of the novelist. They range inlength from couplets to poems of three hundred lines. Sometimes they forman integral part of the narrative, or again they illustrate a point, elaborate an idea in poetry, or are exercises in verse. 

We have tried to bring out the characteristic features of this romance inorder that we may see what the essential elements are of the problem whichfaces one in attempting to explain the origin of the type of literaturerepresented by the work of Petronius. What was there in antecedentliterature which will help us to understand the appearance on Italian soilin the first century of our era of a long erotic story of adventure, dealing in a realistic way with every-day life, marked by a satiricaltone and with a leaning toward the prose-poetic form? This is the questionraised by the analysis, which we have made above, of the characteristicsof the story. We have no ambitious hope of solving it, yet the merestatement of a puzzling but interesting problem is stimulating to theimagination and the intellect, and I am tempted to take up the subjectbecause the discovery of certain papyri in Egypt within recent years hasled to the formulation of a new theory of the origin of the romance ofperilous adventure, and may, therefore, throw some light on the source ofour realistic novel of every-day life. My purpose, then, is to speakbriefly of the different genres of literature of the earlier period withwhich the story of Petronius may stand in some direct relation, or fromwhich the suggestion may have come to Petronius for his work. Several ofthese lines of possible descent have been skilfully traced by others. Intheir views here and there I have made some modifications, and I havecalled attention to one or two types of literature, belonging to theearlier period and heretofore unnoticed in this connection, which may helpus to understand the appearance of the realistic novel. 

It seems a far cry from this story of sordid motives and vulgar action tothe heroic episodes of epic poetry, and yet the _Satirae_ contain not afew more or less direct suggestions of epic situations and characters. Theconventional motif of the story of Petronius is the wrath of an offendeddeity. The narrative in the _Odyssey_ and the _Æneid_ rests on the samebasis. The ship of their enemy Lichas on which Encolpius and hiscompanions are cooped up reminds them of the cave of the Cyclops; Gitonhiding from the town-crier under a mattress is compared to Ulyssesunderneath the sheep and clinging to its wool to escape the eye of theCyclops, while the woman whose charms engage the attention of Encolpius atCroton bears the name of Circe. It seems to be clear from thesereminiscences that Petronius had the epic in mind when he wrote his story, and his novel may well be a direct or an indirect parody of an epicnarrative. Rohde in his analysis of the serious Greek romance of thecenturies subsequent to Petronius has postulated the following developmentfor that form of story: Travellers returning from remote parts of theworld told remarkable stories of their experiences. Some of these storiestook a literary form in the _Odyssey_ and the Tales of the Argonauts. Theyappeared in prose, too, in narratives like the story of Sinbad the Sailor, of a much later date. A more definite plot and a greater dramaticintensity were given to these tales of adventure by the addition of anerotic element which often took the form of two separated lovers. Some useis made of this element, for instance, in the relations of Odysseus andPenelope, perhaps in the episode of Æneas and Dido, and in the story ofJason and Medea. The intrusion of the love motif into the stories told ofdemigods and heroes, so that the whole narrative turns upon it, isillustrated by such tales in the Metamorphoses of Ovid as those of Pyramusand Thisbe, Pluto and Proserpina, or Meleager and Atalanta. The loveelement, which may have been developed in this way out of its slight usein the epic, and the element of adventure form the basis of the seriousGreek romances of Antonius Diogenes, Achilles Tatius, and the otherwriters of the centuries which follow Petronius. 

Before trying to connect the _Satirae_ with a serious romance of the typejust mentioned, let us follow another line of descent which leads us tothe same objective point, viz. , the appearance of the serious story inprose. We have been led to consider the possible connection of this kindof prose fiction with the epic by the presence in both of them of the loveelement and that of adventure. But the Greek novel has another rathermarked feature. It is rhetorical, and this quality has suggested that itmay have come, not from the epic, but from the rhetorical exercise. Support has been given to this theory within recent years by the discoveryin Egypt of two fragments of the Ninos romance. The first of thesefragments reveals Ninos, the hero, pleading with his aunt Derkeia, themother of his sweetheart, for permission to marry his cousin. All thearguments in support of his plea and against it are put forward andbalanced one against the other in a very systematic way. He wins overDerkeia. Later in the same fragment the girl pleads in a somewhat similarfashion with Thambe, the mother of Ninos. The second fragment is mainlyconcerned with the campaigns of Ninos. Here we have the two lovers, probably separated by the departure of Ninos for the wars, while thehero, at least, is exposed to the danger of the campaign. 

The point was made after the text of this find had been published that thelarge part taken in the tale by the carefully balanced arguments indicatedthat the story grew out of exercises in argumentation in the rhetoricalschools. [83] The elder Seneca has preserved for us in his _Controversiae_specimens of the themes which were set for students in these schools. Thestudent was asked to imagine himself in a supposed dilemma and then todiscuss the considerations which would lead him to adopt the one or theother line of conduct. Some of these situations suggest excellent dramaticpossibilities, conditions of life, for instance, where suicide seemedjustifiable, misadventures with pirates, or a turn of affairs whichthreatened a woman's virtue. Before the student reached the point ofarguing the case, the story must be told, and out of these narratives ofadventure, told at the outset to develop the dilemma, may have grown theromance of adventure, written for its own sake. The story of Ninos has apeculiar interest in connection with this theory, because it was probablyvery short, and consequently may give us the connecting link between therhetorical exercise and the long novel of the later period, and because itis the earliest known serious romance. On the back of the papyrus whichcontains it are some farm accounts of the year 101 A. D. Evidently by thattime the roll had become waste paper, and the story itself may have beencomposed a century or even two centuries earlier. So far as this secondtheory is concerned, we may raise the question in passing whether we haveany other instance of a genre of literature growing out of a school-boyexercise. Usually the teacher adapts to his purpose some form of creativeliterature already in existence. 

Leaving this objection out of account for the moment, the romance of loveand perilous adventure may possibly be then a lineal descendant either ofthe epic or of the rhetorical exercise. Whichever of these two views isthe correct one, the discovery of the Ninos romance fills in a gap in onetheory of the origin of the realistic romance of Petronius, and with thatwe are here concerned. Before the story of Ninos was found, no seriousromance and no title of such a romance anterior to the time of Petroniuswas known. This story, as we have seen, may well go back to the firstcentury before Christ, or at least to the beginning of our era. It isconceivable that stories like it, but now lost, existed even at an earlierdate. Now in the century, more or less, which elapsed between the assumeddate of the appearance of these Greek narratives and the time ofPetronius, the extraordinary commercial development of Rome had created anew aristocracy--the aristocracy of wealth. In harmony with this socialchange the military chieftain and the political leader who had been theheroes of the old fiction gave way to the substantial man of affairs ofthe new, just as Thaddeus of Warsaw has yielded his place in ourpresent-day novels to Silas Lapham, and the bourgeois erotic story ofadventure resulted, as we find it in the extant Greek novels of the secondand third centuries of our era. If we can assume that this stage ofdevelopment was reached before the time of Petronius we can think of hisnovel as a parody of such a romance. If, however, the bourgeois romancehad not appeared before 50 A. D. , then, if we regard his story as a parodyof a prose narrative, it must be a parody of such an heroic romance asthat of Ninos, or a parody of the longer heroic romances which developedout of the rhetorical narrative. If excavations in Egypt or at Herculaneumshould bring to light a serious bourgeois story of adventure, they wouldfurnish us the missing link. Until, or unless, such a discovery is madethe chain of evidence is incomplete. 

The two theories of the realistic romance which we have been discussingassume that it is a parody of some anterior form of literature, and thatthis fact accounts for the appearance of the satirical or cynical elementin it. Other students of literary history, however, think that thischaracteristic was brought over directly from the Milesian tale[84] or theMenippean satire. [85] To how many different kinds of stories the term"Milesian tale" was applied by the ancients is a matter of dispute, butthe existence of the short story before the time of Petronius is beyondquestion. Indeed we find specimens of it. In its commonest form itpresented a single episode of every-day life. It brought out some humanweakness or foible. Very often it was a story of illicit love. Itsphilosophy of life was: No man's honesty and no woman's virtue areunassailable. In all these respects, save in the fact that it presents oneepisode only, it resembles the _Satirae_ of Petronius. At least twostories of this type are to be found in the extant fragments of the novelof Petronius. One of them is related as a well-known tale by the poetEumolpus, and the other is told by him as a personal experience. More thana dozen of them are imbedded in the novel of Apuleius, the_Metamorphoses_, and modern specimens of them are to be seen in Boccaccioand in Chaucer. In fact they are popular from the twelfth century down tothe eighteenth. Long before the time of Petronius they occur sporadicallyin literature. A good specimen, for instance, is found in a lettercommonly attributed to Æschines in the fourth century B. C. As early asthe first century before Christ collections of them had been made andtranslated into Latin. This development suggests an interesting possibleorigin of the realistic romance. In such collections as those justmentioned of the first century B. C. , the central figures were different inthe different stories, as is the case, for instance, in the CanterburyTales. Such an original writer as Petronius was may well have thought ofconnecting these different episodes by making them the experiences of asingle individual. The Encolpius of Petronius would in that case be in away an ancient Don Juan. If we compare the Arabian Nights with one of thegroups of stories found in the Romances of the Round Table, we can seewhat this step forward would mean. The tales which bear the title of theArabian Nights all have the same general setting and the same generaltreatment, and they are put in the mouth of the same story-teller. TheLancelot group of Round Table stories, however, shows a nearer approach tounity since the stories in it concern the same person, and have a commonultimate purpose, even if it is vague. When this point had been reachedthe realistic romance would have made its appearance. We have beenthinking of the realistic novel as being made up of a series of Milesiantales. We may conceive of it, however, as an expanded Milesian tale, justas scholars are coming to think of the epic as growing out of a singlehero-song, rather than as resulting from the union of several such songs. 

To pass to another possibility, it is very tempting to see a connectionbetween the _Satirae_ of Petronius and the prologue of comedy. Plautusthought it necessary to prefix to many of his plays an account of theincidents which preceded the action of the play. In some cases he went sofar as to outline in the prologue the action of the play itself in orderthat the spectators might follow it intelligently. This introductorynarrative runs up to seventy-six lines in the _Menaechmi_, to eighty-twoin the _Rudens_, and to one hundred and fifty-two in the _Amphitruo_. Inthis way it becomes a short realistic story of every-day people, involvingfrequently a love intrigue, and told in the iambic senarius, the simplestform of verse. Following it is the more extended narrative of the comedyitself, with its incidents and dialogue. This combination of thecondensed narrative in the story form, presented usually as a monologue insimple verse, and the expanded narrative in the dramatic form, with itsconversational element, may well have suggested the writing of a realisticnovel in prose. A slight, though not a fatal, objection to this theorylies in the fact that the prologues to comedy subsequent to Plautuschanged in their character, and contain little narrative. This is not aserious objection, for the plays of Plautus were still known to thecultivated in the later period. 

The mime gives us still more numerous points of contact with the work ofPetronius than comedy does. [86] It is unfortunate, both for ourunderstanding of Roman life and for our solution of the question beforeus, that only fragments of this form of dramatic composition have comedown to us. Even from them, however, it is clear that the mime dealt withevery-day life in a very frank, realistic way. The new comedy has itsconventions in the matter of situations and language. The matron, forinstance, must not be presented in a questionable light, and the languageis the conversational speech of the better classes. The mime recognizes nosuch restrictions in its portrayal of life. The married woman, her stupidhusband, and her lover are common figures in this form of the drama, andif we may draw an inference from the lately discovered fragments of Greekmimes, the speech was that of the common people. Again, the new comedy hasits limited list of stock characters--the old man, the tricky slave, theparasite, and the others which we know so well in Plautus and Terence, butas for the mime, any figure to be seen on the street may find a place init--the rhetorician, the soldier, the legacy-hunter, the inn-keeper, orthe town-crier. The doings of kings and heroes were parodied. We are eventold that a comic Hector and Achilles were put on the stage, and the godsdid not come off unscathed. All of these characteristic features of themime remind us in a striking way of the novel of Petronius. His work, likethe mime, is a realistic picture of low life which presents a greatvariety of characters and shows no regard for conventional morals. It isespecially interesting to notice the element of parody, which we havealready observed in Petronius, in both kinds of literary productions. Thetheory that Petronius may have had the composition of his _Satirae_suggested to him by plays of this type is greatly strengthened by the factthat the mime reached its highest point of popularity at the court in thetime of Nero, in whose reign Petronius lived. In point of fact Petroniusrefers to the mime frequently. One of these passages is of peculiarsignificance in this connection. Encolpius and his comrades are enteringthe town of Croton and are considering what device they shall adopt so asto live without working. At last a happy idea occurs to Eumolpus, and hesays: "Why don't we construct a mime?" and the mime is played, withEumolpus as a fabulously rich man at the point of death, and the others ashis attendants. The rôle makes a great hit, and all the vagabonds in thecompany play their assumed parts in their daily life at Croton with suchskill that the legacy-hunters of the place load them with attentions andshower them with presents. This whole episode, in fact, may be thought ofas a mime cast in the narrative form, and the same conception may beapplied with great plausibility to the entire story of Encolpius. 

We have thus far been attacking the question with which we are concernedfrom the side of the subject-matter and tone of the story of Petronius. Another method of approach is suggested by the Menippean satire, [87] thebest specimens of which have come down to us in the fragments of Varro, one of Cicero's contemporaries. These satires are an _olla podrida_, dealing with all sorts of subjects in a satirical manner, sometimes put inthe dialogue form and cast in a _mélange_ of prose and verse. It is thislast characteristic which is of special interest to us in this connection, because in the prose of Petronius verses are freely used. Sometimes, as wehave observed above, they form an integral part of the narrative, andagain they merely illustrate or expand a point touched on in the prose. Ifit were not aside from our immediate purpose it would be interesting tofollow the history of this prose-poetical form from the time of Petroniuson. After him it does not seem to have been used very much until the thirdand fourth centuries of our era. However, Martial in the first centuryprefixed a prose prologue to five books of his Epigrams, and one of theseprologues ends with a poem of four lines. The several books of the_Silvae_ of Statius are also preceded by prose letters of dedication. Thatstrange imitation of the _Aulularia_ of Plautus, of the fourth century, the _Querolus_, is in a form half prose and half verse. A sentence beginsin prose and runs off into verse, as some of the epitaphs also do. TheEpistles of Ausonius of the same century are compounded of prose and agreat variety of verse. By the fifth and sixth centuries, a _mélange_ ofverse or a combination of prose and verse is very common, as one can seein the writings of Martianus Capella, Sidonius Apollinaris, Ennodius, andBoethius. It recurs again in modern times, for instance in Dante's _LaVita Nuova_, in Boccaccio, _Aucassin et Nicolette_, the _Heptameron_, the_Celtic Ballads_, the _Arabian Nights_, and in _Alice in Wonderland_. 

A little thought suggests that the prose-poetic form is a natural mediumof expression. A change from prose to verse, or from one form of verse toanother, suggests a change in the emotional condition of a speaker orwriter. We see that clearly enough illustrated in tragedy or comedy. Inthe thrilling scene in the _Captives of Plautus_, for example, whereTyndarus is in mortal terror lest the trick which he has played on hismaster, Hegio, may be discovered, and he be consigned to work in chains inthe quarries, the verse is the trochaic septenarius. As soon as thesuspense is over, it drops to the iambic senarius. If we should arrangethe commoner Latin verses in a sequence according to the emotional effectswhich they produce, at the bottom of the series would stand the iambicsenarius. Above that would come trochaic verse, and we should rise tohigher planes of exaltation as we read the anapæstic, or cretic, orbacchiac. The greater part of life is commonplace. Consequently the commonmedium for conversation or for the narrative in a composition like comedymade up entirely of verse is the senarius. Now this form of verse in itssimple, almost natural, quantitative arrangement is very close to prose, and it would be a short step to substitute prose for it as the basis ofthe story, interspersing verse here and there to secure variety, or whenthe emotions were called into play, just as lyric verses are interpolatedin the iambic narrative. In this way the combination of different kindsof verse in the drama, and the prosimetrum of the Menippean satire and ofPetronius, may be explained, and we see a possible line of descent fromcomedy and this form of satire to the _Satirae_. 

These various theories of the origin of the romance of Petronius--that itmay be related to the epic, to the serious heroic romance, to thebourgeois story of adventure developed out of the rhetorical exercise, tothe Milesian tale, to the prologue of comedy, to the _verse-mélange_ ofcomedy or the mime, or to the prose-poetical Menippean satire--are not, ofnecessity, it seems to me, mutually exclusive. His novel may well bethought of as a parody of the serious romance, with frequent reminiscencesof the epic, a parody suggested to him by comedy and its prologue, by themime, or by the short cynical Milesian tale, and cast in the form of theMenippean satire; or, so far as subject-matter and realistic treatment areconcerned, the suggestion may have come directly from the mime, and if wecan accept the theory of some scholars who have lately studied the mime, that it sometimes contained both prose and verse, we may be inclined toregard this type of literature as the immediate progenitor of the novel, even in the matter of external form, and leave the Menippean satire out ofthe line of descent. Whether the one or the other of these explanations ofits origin recommends itself to us as probable, it is interesting to note, as we leave the subject, that, so far as our present information goes, therealistic romance seems to have been the invention of Petronius. 

Diocletian's Edict and the High Cost of Living

The history of the growth of paternalism in the Roman Empire is still tobe written. It would be a fascinating and instructive record. In it thechanges in the character of the Romans and in their social and economicconditions would come out clearly. It would disclose a strange mixture ofworthy and unworthy motives in their statesmen and politicians, who wereactuated sometimes by sympathy for the poor, sometimes by a desire forpopular favor, by an honest wish to check extravagance or immorality, orby the fear that the discontent of the masses might drive them intorevolution. We should find the Roman people, recognizing the menace totheir simple, frugal way of living which lay in the inroads of Greekcivilization, and turning in their helplessness to their officials, thecensors, to protect them from a demoralization which, by their ownefforts, they could not withstand. We should find the same officialspreaching against race suicide, extravagant living, and evasion of publicduties, and imposing penalties and restrictions in the most autocraticfashion on men of high and low degree alike who failed to adopt theofficial standards of conduct. We should read of laws enacted in the samespirit, laws restricting the number of guests that might be entertained ona single occasion, and prescribing penalties for guests and host alike, ifthe cost of a dinner exceeded the statutory limit. All this belongs to theearly stage of paternal government. The motives were praiseworthy, even ifthe results were futile. 

With the advent of the Gracchi, toward the close of the second centurybefore our era, moral considerations become less noticeable, andpaternalism takes on a more philanthropic and political character. We seethis change reflected in the land laws and the corn laws. To take up firstthe free distribution of land by the state, in the early days of theRepublic colonies of citizens were founded in the newly conquereddistricts of Italy to serve as garrisons on the frontier. It was a fairbargain between the citizen and the state. He received land, the state, protection. But with Tiberius Gracchus a change comes in. His colonistswere to be settled in peaceful sections of Italy; they were to receiveland solely because of their poverty. This was socialism or statephilanthropy. Like the agrarian bill of Tiberius, the corn law of GaiusGracchus, which provided for the sale of grain below the market price, wasa paternal measure inspired in part by sympathy for the needy. Thepolitical element is clear in both cases also. The people who were thusfavored by assignments of land and of food naturally supported the leaderswho assisted them. Perhaps the extensive building of roads which GaiusGracchus carried on should be mentioned in this connection. The ostensiblepurpose of these great highways, perhaps their primary purpose, was todevelop Italy and to facilitate communication between different parts ofthe peninsula, but a large number of men was required for theirconstruction, and Gaius Gracchus may well have taken the matter up, partlyfor the purpose of furnishing work to the unemployed. Out of these smallbeginnings developed the socialistic policy of later times. By the middleof the first century B. C. , it is said that there were three hundred andtwenty thousand persons receiving doles of corn from the state, and, ifthe people could look to the government for the necessities of life, whymight they not hope to have it supply their less pressing needs? Or, toput it in another way, if one politician won their support by giving themcorn, why might not another increase his popularity by providing them withamusement and with the comforts of life? Presents of oil and clothingnaturally follow, the giving of games and theatrical performances at theexpense of the state, and the building of porticos and public baths. Asthe government and wealthy citizens assumed a larger measure ofresponsibility for the welfare of the citizens, the people became more andmore dependent upon them and less capable of managing their own affairs. An indication of this change we see in the decline of localself-government and the assumption by the central administration ofresponsibility for the conduct of public business in the towns of Italy. This last consideration suggests another phase of Roman history which astudy of paternalism would bring out--I mean the effect of itsintroduction on the character of the Roman people. 

The history of paternalism in Rome, when it is written, might approachthe subject from several different points. If the writer were inclined tointerpret history on the economic side, he might find the explanation ofthe change in the policy of the government toward its citizens in theintroduction of slave labor which, under the Republic, drove the freelaborer to the wall and made him look to the state for help, in thedecline of agriculture, and the growth of capitalism. The sociologistwould notice the drift of the people toward the cities and the suddenmassing there of large numbers of persons who could not provide forthemselves and in their discontent might overturn society. The historianwho concerns himself with political changes mainly, would notice thesocialistic legislation of the Gracchi and their political successors andwould connect the growth of paternalism with the development of democracy. In all these explanations there would be a certain measure of truth. 

But I am not planning here to write a history of paternalism among theRomans. That is one of the projects which I had been reserving for the daywhen the Carnegie Foundation should present me with a wooden sword andallow me to retire from the arena of academic life. But, alas! thetrustees of that beneficent institution, by the revision which they havelately made of the conditions under which a university professor maywithdraw from active service, have in their wisdom put off that day ofacademic leisure to the Greek Kalends, and my dream vanishes into thedistance with it. 

Here I wish to present only an episode in this history which we have beendiscussing, an episode which is unique, however, in ancient and, so far asI know, in modern history. Our knowledge of the incident comes from anedict of the Emperor Diocletian, and this document has a direct bearing ona subject of present-day discussion, because it contains a diatribeagainst the high cost of living and records the heroic attempt which theRoman government made to reduce it. In his effort to bring prices down towhat he considered a normal level, Diocletian did not content himself withsuch half-measures as we are trying in our attempts to suppresscombinations in restraint of trade, but he boldly fixed the maximum pricesat which beef, grain, eggs, clothing, and other articles could be sold, and prescribed the penalty of death for any one who disposed of his waresat a higher figure. His edict is a very comprehensive document, andspecifies prices for seven hundred or eight hundred different articles. This systematic attempt to regulate trade was very much in keeping withthe character of Diocletian and his theory of government. Perhaps no Romanemperor, with the possible exception of Hadrian, showed such extraordinaryadministrative ability and proposed so many sweeping social reforms asDiocletian did. His systematic attempt to suppress Christianity is a casein point, and in the last twenty years of his reign he completelyreorganized the government. He frankly introduced the monarchicalprinciple, fixed upon a method of succession to the throne, redivided theprovinces, established a carefully graded system of officials, concernedhimself with court etiquette and dress, and reorganized the coinage andthe system of taxation. We are not surprised therefore that he had thecourage to attack this difficult question of high prices, and that hisplan covered almost all the articles which his subjects would haveoccasion to buy. 

It is almost exactly two centuries since the first fragments of the edictdealing with the subject were brought to light. They were discovered inCaria, in 1709, by William Sherard, the English consul at Smyrna. Sincethen, from time to time, other fragments of tablets containing parts ofthe edict have been found in Egypt, Asia Minor, and Greece. At presentportions of twenty-nine copies of it are known. Fourteen of them are inLatin and fifteen in Greek. The Greek versions differ from one another, while the Latin texts are identical, except for the stone-cutters'mistakes here and there. These facts make it clear that the originaldocument was in Latin, and was translated into Greek by the localofficials of each town where the tablets were set up. We have alreadynoticed that specimens of the edict have not been found outside of Egypt, Greece, and Asia Minor, and this was the part of the Roman world whereDiocletian ruled. Scholars have also observed that almost all themanufactured articles which are mentioned come from Eastern points. Fromthese facts it has been inferred that the edict was to apply to the Eastonly, or perhaps more probably that Diocletian drew it up for his part ofthe Roman world, and that before it could be applied to the West it wasrepealed. 

From the pieces which were then known, a very satisfactory reconstructionof the document was made by Mommsen and published in the _Corpus of LatinInscriptions_. [88]

The work of restoration was like putting together the parts of a picturepuzzle where some of the pieces are lacking. Fragments are still coming tolight, and possibly we may have the complete text some day. As it is, theintroduction is complete, and perhaps four-fifths of the list of articleswith prices attached are extant. The introduction opens with a statelylist of the titles of the two Augusti and the two Cæsars, which fixes thedate of the proclamation as 301 A. D. Then follows a long recital of thecircumstances which have led the government to adopt this drastic methodof controlling prices. This introduction is one of the most extraordinarypieces of bombast, mixed metaphors, loose syntax, and incoherentexpressions that Latin literature possesses. One is tempted to infer fromits style that it was the product of Diocletian's own pen. He was a man ofhumble origin, and would not live in Rome for fear of being laughed at onaccount of his plebeian training. The florid and awkward style of theseintroductory pages is exactly what we should expect from a man of suchantecedents. 

It is very difficult to translate them into intelligible English, but someconception of their style and contents may be had from one or twoextracts. In explaining the situation which confronts the world, theEmperor writes: "For, if the raging avarice . . . Which, without regard formankind, increases and develops by leaps and bounds, we will not say fromyear to year, month to month, or day to day, but almost from hour to hour, and even from minute to minute, could be held in check by some regard formoderation, or if the welfare of the people could calmly tolerate this madlicense from which, in a situation like this, it suffers in the worstpossible fashion from day to day, some ground would appear, perhaps, forconcealing the truth and saying nothing; . . . But inasmuch as there isonly seen a mad desire without control, to pay no heed to the needs of themany, . . . It seems good to us, as we look into the future, to us who arethe fathers of the people, that justice intervene to settle mattersimpartially, in order that that which, long hoped for, humanity itselfcould not bring about may be secured for the common government of all bythe remedies which our care affords. . . . Who is of so hardened a heart andso untouched by a feeling for humanity that he can be unaware, nay that hehas not noticed, that in the sale of wares which are exchanged in themarket, or dealt with in the daily business of the cities, an exorbitanttendency in prices has spread to such an extent that the unbridled desireof plundering is held in check neither by abundance nor by seasons ofplenty!"

If we did not know that this was found on tablets sixteen centuries old, we might think that we were reading a newspaper diatribe against thecold-storage plant or the beef trust. What the Emperor has decided to doto remedy the situation he sets forth toward the end of the introduction. He says: "It is our pleasure, therefore, that those prices which thesubjoined written summary specifies, be held in observance throughout allour domain, that all may know that license to go above the same has beencut off. . . . It is our pleasure (also) that if any man shall have boldlycome into conflict with this formal statute, he shall put his life inperil. . . . In the same peril also shall he be placed who, drawn along byavarice in his desire to buy, shall have conspired against these statutes. Nor shall he be esteemed innocent of the same crime who, having articlesnecessary for daily life and use, shall have decided hereafter that theycan be held back, since the punishment ought to be even heavier for himwho causes need than for him who violates the laws. "

The lists which follow are arranged in three columns which giverespectively the article, the unit of measure, and the price. [89]

 Frumenti K̄M̄ Hordei K̄M̄ unum Ⅹ̶ c(entum) Centenum sive sicale " " " Ⅹ̶ sexa(ginta) Mili pisti " " " Ⅹ̶ centu(m) Mili integri " " Ⅹ̶ quinquaginta'

 The first item (frumentum) is wheat, which is sold by the K̄M̄ (kastrensis modius=18½ quarts), but the price is lacking. Barley is sold by the kastrensis modius at Ⅹ̶ centum (centum denarii = 43 cents) and so on. 

Usually a price list is not of engrossing interest, but the tables ofDiocletian furnish us a picture of material conditions throughout theEmpire in his time which cannot be had from any other source, and for thatreason deserve some attention. This consideration emboldens me to set downsome extracts in the following pages from the body of the edict:

Extracts from Diocletian's List of Maximum Prices

I

In the tables given here the Latin and Greek names of the articles listedhave been turned into English. The present-day accepted measure ofquantity--for instance, the bushel or the quart--has been substituted forthe ancient unit, and the corresponding price for the modern unit ofmeasure is given. Thus barley was to be sold by the kastrensis modius(=18½ quarts) at 100 denarii (=43. 5 cents). At this rate a bushel ofbarley would have brought 74. 5 cents. For convenience in reference thenumbers of the chapters and of the items adopted in the text of Mommsenare used here. Only selected articles are given. 

 (Unit of Measure, the Bushel)

1 Wheat2 Barley 74. 5 cents3 Rye 45 "4 Millet, ground 74. 5 "6 Millet, whole 37 "7 Spelt, hulled 74. 5 "8 Spelt, not hulled 22. 5 "9 Beans, ground 74. 5 "10 Beans, not ground 45 "11 Lentils 74. 5 "12-16 Peas, various sorts 45-74. 5 "17 Oats 22. 5 "31 Poppy seeds $1. 1234 Mustard $1. 1235 Prepared mustard, quart 6 "

 II

 (Unit of Measure, the Quart)

1a Wine from Picenum 22. 5 cents2 Wine from Tibur 22. 5 "7 Wine from Falernum 22. 5 "10 Wine of the country 6 "11-12 Beer 1. 5-3 "

 III

(Unit of Measure, the Quart)

1a Oil, first quality 30. 3 cents2 Oil, second quality 18 "5 Vinegar 4. 3 "8 Salt, bushel 74. 5 "10 Honey, best 30. 3 "11 Honey, second quality 15 "

 IV

 (Unit, Unless Otherwise Noted, Pound Avoirdupois)

1a Pork 7. 3 cents2 Beef 4. 9 "3 Goat's flesh or mutton 4. 9 "6 Pig's liver 9. 8 "8 Ham, best 12 "21 Goose, artificially fed (1) 87 "22 Goose, not artificially fed (1) 43. 5 "23 Pair of fowls 36 "29 Pair of pigeons 10. 5 "47 Lamb 7. 3 "48 Kid 7. 3 "50 Butter 9. 8 "

 V

 (Unit, the Pound)

1a Sea fish with sharp spines 14. 6 cents2 Fish, second quality 9. 7 "3 River fish, best quality 7. 3 "4 Fish, second quality 4. 8 "5 Salt fish 8. 3 "6 Oysters (by the hundred) 43. 5 "11 Dry cheese 7. 3 "12 Sardines 9. 7 "

 VI

1 Artichokes, large (5) 4. 3 cents7 Lettuce, best (5) 1. 7 "9 Cabbages, best (5) 1. 7 "10 Cabbages, small (10) 1. 7 "18 Turnips, large (10) 1. 7 "24 Watercress, per bunch of 20 4. 3 "28 Cucumbers, first quality (10) 1. 7 "29 Cucumbers, small (20) 1. 7 "34 Garden asparagus, per bunch (25) 2. 6 "35 Wild asparagus (50) 1. 7 "38 Shelled green beans, quart 3 "43 Eggs (4) 1. 7 "46 Snails, large (20) 1. 7 "65 Apples, best (10) 1. 7 "67 Apples, small (40) 1. 7 "78 Figs, best (25) 1. 7 "80 Table grapes (2. 8 pound) 1. 7 "95 Sheep's milk, quart 6 "96 Cheese, fresh, quart 6 "

 VII

 (Where (k) Is Set Down the Workman Receives His "Keep" Also)

1a Manual laborer (k) 10. 8 cents2 Bricklayer (k) 21. 6 "3 Joiner (interior work) (k) 21. 6 "3a Carpenter (k) 21. 6 "4 Lime-burner (k) 21. 6 "5 Marble-worker (k) 26 "6 Mosaic-worker (fine work) (k) 26 "7 Stone-mason (k) 21. 6 "8 Wall-painter (k) 32. 4 "9 Figure-painter (k) 64. 8 "10 Wagon-maker (k) 21. 6 "11 Smith (k) 21. 6 "12 Baker (k) 21. 6 "13 Ship-builder, for sea-going ships (k) 26 "14 Ship-builder, for river boats (k) 21. 6 "17 Driver, for camel, ass, or mule (k) 10. 8 "18 Shepherd (k) 8. 7 "20 Veterinary, for cutting, and straightening hoofs, per animal 2. 6 "22 Barber, for each man . 9 cent23 Sheep-shearer, for each sheep (k) . 9 "24a Coppersmith, for work in brass, per pound 3. 5 cents25 Coppersmith, for work in copper, per pound 2. 6 "26 Coppersmith for finishing vessels, per pound 2. 6 "27 Coppersmith, for finishing figures and statues, per pound 1. 7 "29 Maker of statues, etc. , per day (k) 32. 4 "31 Water-carrier, per day (k) 10. 9 "32 Sewer-cleaner, per day (k) 10. 9 "33 Knife-grinder, for old sabre 10. 9 "36 Knife-grinder, for double axe 3. 5 "39 Writer, 100 lines best writing 10. 9 "40 Writer, 100 lines ordinary writing 8. 7 "41 Document writer for record of 100 lines 4. 3 "42 Tailor, for cutting out and finishing overgarment of first quality 26. 1 "43 Tailor, for cutting out and finishing overgarment of second quality 17. 4 "44 For a large cowl 10. 9 "45 For a small cowl 8. 7 "46 For trousers 8. 7 "52 Felt horse-blanket, black or white, 3 pounds weight 43. 5 "53 Cover, first quality, with embroidery, 3 pounds weight $1. 0964 Gymnastic teacher, per pupil, per month 21. 6 cents65 Employee to watch children, per child, per month 21. 6 "66 Elementary teacher, per pupil, per month 21. 6 "67 Teacher of arithmetic, per pupil, per month 32. 6 "68 Teacher of stenography, per pupil, per month 32. 6 "69 Writing-teacher, per pupil, per month 21. 6 "70 Teacher of Greek, Latin, geometry, per pupil, per month 87 "71 Teacher of rhetoric, per pupil, per month $1. 0972 Advocate or counsel for presenting a case $1. 0973 For finishing a case $4. 3574 Teacher of architecture, per pupil, per month 43. 5 cents75 Watcher of clothes in public bath, for each patron . 9 cent

 VIII

1a Hide, Babylonian, first quality $2. 17 2 Hide, Babylonian, second quality $1. 74 4 Hide, Phœnician (?) 43 cents6a Cowhide, unworked, first quality $2. 17 7 Cowhide, prepared for shoe soles $3. 26 9 Hide, second quality, unworked $1. 3110 Hide, second quality, worked $2. 1711 Goatskin, large, unworked 17 cents12 Goatskin, large, worked 22 "13 Sheepskin, large, unworked 8. 7 "14 Sheepskin, large, worked 18 "17 Kidskin, unworked 4. 3 "18 Kidskin, worked 7 "27 Wolfskin, unworked 10. 8 "28 Wolfskin, worked 17. 4 "33 Bearskin, large, unworked 43 "39 Leopardskin, unworked $4. 3541 Lionskin, worked $4. 35

 IX

5a Boots, first quality, for mule-drivers and peasants, per pair, without nails 52 cents 6 Soldiers' boots, without nails 43 " 7 Patricians' shoes 65 " 8 Senatorial shoes 43 " 9 Knights' shoes 30. 5 "10 Women's boots 26 "11 Soldiers' shoes 32. 6 "15 Cowhide shoes for women, double soles 21. 7 "16 Cowhide shoes for women, single soles 13 "20 Men's slippers 26 "21 Women's slippers 21. 7 "

 XVI

8a Sewing-needle, finest quality 1. 7 cents 9 Sewing-needle, second quality . 9 cent

 XVII

 1 Transportation, 1 person, 1 mile . 9 cent 2 Rent for wagon, 1 mile 5 cents 3 Freight charges for wagon containing up to 1, 200 pounds, per mile 8. 7 " 4 Freight charges for camel load of 600 pounds, per mile 3. 5 " 5 Rent for laden ass, per mile 1. 8 " 7 Hay and straw, 3 pounds . 9 cent

 XVIII

 1a Goose-quills, per pound 43. 5 cents11a Ink, per pound 5 "12 Reed pens from Paphos (10) 1. 7 "13 Reed pens, second quality (20) 1. 7 "

 XIX

 1 Military mantle, finest quality $17. 40 2 Undergarment, fine $8. 70 3 Undergarment, ordinary $5. 44 5 White bed blanket, finest sort, 12 pounds weight $6. 96 7 Ordinary cover, 10 pounds weight $2. 1828 Laodicean Dalmatica [_i. E. , a tunic with sleeves_] $8. 7036 British mantle, with cowl $26. 0839 Numidian mantle, with cowl $13. 0442 African mantle, with cowl $6. 5251 Laodicean storm coat, finest quality $21. 7660 Gallic soldier's cloak $43. 7861 African soldier's cloak $2. 17

 XX

 1a For an embroiderer, for embroidering a half-silk undergarment, per ounce 87 cents 5 For a gold embroiderer, if he work in gold, for finest work, per ounce $4. 35 9 For a silk weaver, who works on stuff half-silk, besides "keep, " per day 11 cents

 XXI

 2 For working Tarentine or Laodicean or other foreign wool, with keep, per pound 13 cents 5 A linen weaver for fine work, with keep, per day 18 "

 XXII

 4 Fuller's charges for a cloak or mantle, new 13 cents 6 Fuller's charges for a woman's coarse Dalmatica, new 21. 7 " 9 Fuller's charges for a new half-silk undergarment 76 "22 Fuller's charges for a new Laodicean mantle. 76 "

 XXIII

 1 White silk, per pound $52. 22

 XXIV

 1 Genuine purple silk, per pound $652. 20 2 Genuine purple wool, per pound $217. 40 3 Genuine light purple wool, per pound $139. 26 8 Nicæan scarlet wool, per pound $6. 53

 XXV

 1 Washed Tarentine wool, per pound 76 cents 2 Washed Laodicean wool, per pound 65 " 3 Washed wool from Asturia, per pound 43. 5 " 4 Washed wool, best medium quality, per pound 21. 7 " 5 All other washed wools, per pound 10. 8 "

 XXVI

 7a Coarse linen thread, first quality, per pound $3. 13 8 Coarse linen thread, second quality, per pound $2. 61 9 Coarse linen thread, third quality, per pound $1. 96

 XXX

 1 Pure gold in bars or in coined pieces, per pound 50, 000 denarii 3 Artificers, working in metal, per pound $21. 76 4 Gold-beaters, per pound $13. 06

Throughout the lists, as one may see, articles are grouped in a systematicway. First we find grain and vegetables; then wine, oil, vinegar, salt, honey, meat, fish, cheese, salads, and nuts. After these articles, inchapter VII, we pass rather unexpectedly to the wages of the fieldlaborer, the carpenter, the painter, and of other skilled and unskilledworkmen. Then follow leather, shoes, saddles, and other kinds of rawmaterial and manufactured wares until we reach a total of more than eighthundred articles. As we have said, the classification is in the mainsystematic, but there are some strange deviations from a systematicarrangement. Eggs, for instance, are in table VI with salads, vegetables, and fruits. Bücher, who has discussed some phases of this price list, hasacutely surmised that perhaps the tables in whole, or in part, were drawnup by the directors of imperial factories and magazines. The governmentlevied tribute "in kind, " and it must have provided depots throughout theprovinces for the reception of contributions from its subjects. Consequently in making out these tables it would very likely call upon thedirectors of these magazines for assistance, and each of them in makinghis report would naturally follow to some extent the list of articleswhich the imperial depot controlled by him, carried in stock. At allevents, we see evidence of an expert hand in the list of linens, whichincludes one hundred and thirty-nine articles of different qualities. 

As we have noticed in the passage quoted from the introduction, it isunlawful for a person to charge more for any of his wares than the amountspecified in the law. Consequently, the prices are not normal, but maximumprices. However, since the imperial lawgivers evidently believed that thenecessities of life were being sold at exorbitant rates, the maximum whichthey fixed was very likely no greater than the prevailing market price. Here and there, as in the nineteenth chapter of the document, the text isgiven in tablets from two or more places. In such cases the prices are thesame, so that apparently no allowance was made for the cost of carriage, although with some articles, like oysters and sea-fish, this item musthave had an appreciable value, and it certainly should have been takeninto account in fixing the prices of "British mantles" or "Gallicsoldiers' cloaks" of chapter XIX. The quantities for which prices aregiven are so small--a pint of wine, a pair of fowls, twenty snails, tenapples, a bunch of asparagus--that evidently Diocletian had the "ultimateconsumer" in mind, and fixed the retail price in his edict. This isfortunate for us, because it helps us to get at the cost of living in theearly part of the fourth century. There is good reason for believing thatthe system of barter prevailed much more generally at that time than itdoes to-day. Probably the farmer often exchanged his grain, vegetables, and eggs for shoes and cloth, without receiving or paying out money, sothat the money prices fixed for his products would not affect him in everytransaction as they would affect the present-day farmer. The unit of moneywhich is used throughout the edict is the copper denarius, and fortunatelythe value of a pound of fine gold is given as 50, 000 denarii. This fixesthe value of the denarius as . 4352 cent, or approximately four-tenths of acent. It is implied in the introduction that the purpose of the law is toprotect the people, and especially the soldiers, from extortion, butpossibly, as Bücher has surmised, the emperor may have wished to maintainor to raise the value of the denarius, which had been steadily decliningbecause of the addition of alloy to the coin. If this was the emperor'sobject, possibly the value of the denarius is set somewhat too high, butit probably does not materially exceed its exchange value, and in anycase, the relative values of articles given in the tables are notaffected. 

The tables bring out a number of points of passing interest. From chapterII it seems to follow that Italian wines retained their ancientpre-eminence, even in the fourth century. They alone are quoted among theforeign wines. Table VI gives us a picture of the village market. Onmarket days the farmer brings his artichokes, lettuce, cabbages, turnips, and other fresh vegetables into the market town and exposes them for salein the public square, as the country people in Italy do to-day. Theseventh chapter, in which wages are given, is perhaps of liveliestinterest. In this connection we should bear in mind the fact that slaveryexisted in the Roman Empire, that owners of slaves trained them to variousoccupations and hired them out by the day or job, and that, consequentlythe prices paid for slave labor fixed the scale of wages. However, therewas a steady decline under the Empire in the number of slaves, andcompetition with them in the fourth century did not materially affect thewages of the free laborer. It is interesting, in this chapter, to noticethat the teacher and the advocate (Nos. 66-73) are classed with thecarpenter and tailor. It is a pleasant passing reflection for the teacherof Greek and Latin to find that his predecessors were near the top oftheir profession, if we may draw this inference from their remunerationwhen compared with that of other teachers. It is worth observing also thatthe close association between the classics and mathematics, and theiracceptance as the corner-stone of the higher training, to which we havebeen accustomed for centuries, seems to be recognized (VII, 70) even atthis early date. We expect to find the physician mentioned with theteacher and advocate, but probably it was too much even for Diocletian'sskill, in reducing things to a system, to estimate the comparative valueof a physician's services in a case of measles and typhoid fever. 

The bricklayer, the joiner, and the carpenter (VII, 2-3a), inasmuch asthey work on the premises of their employer, receive their "keep" as wellas a fixed wage, while the knife-grinder and the tailor (VII, 33, 42)work in their own shops, and naturally have their meals at home. Thesilk-weaver (XX, 9) and the linen-weaver (XXI, 5) have their "keep" also, which seems to indicate that private houses had their own looms, which isquite in harmony with the practices of our fathers. The carpenter andjoiner are paid by the day, the teacher by the month, the knife-grinder, the tailor, the barber (VII, 22) by the piece, and the coppersmith (VII, 24a-27) according to the amount of metal which he uses. Whether thedifference between the prices of shoes for the patrician, the senator, andthe knight (IX, 7-9) represents a difference in the cost of making thethree kinds, or is a tax put on the different orders of nobility, cannotbe determined. The high prices set on silk and wool dyed with purple(XXIV) correspond to the pre-eminent position of that imperial color inancient times. The tables which the edict contains call our attention tocertain striking differences between ancient and modern industrial andeconomic conditions. Of course the list of wage-earners is incomplete. Theinscriptions which the trades guilds have left us record many occupationswhich are not mentioned here, but in them and in these lists we miss anyreference to large groups of men who hold a prominent place in our modernindustrial reports--I mean men working in printing-offices, factories, foundries, and machine-shops, and employed by transportation companies. Nothing in the document suggests the application of power to themanufacture of articles, the assembling of men in a common workshop, orthe use of any other machine than the hand loom and the mill for thegrinding of corn. In the way of articles offered for sale, we miss certainitems which find a place in every price-list of household necessities, such articles as sugar, molasses, potatoes, cotton cloth, tobacco, coffee, and tea. The list of stimulants (II) is, in fact, very brief, including asit does only a few kinds of wine and beer. 

At the present moment, when the high cost of living is a subject whichengages the attention of the economist, politician, and householder, as itdid that of Diocletian and his contemporaries, the curious reader willwish to know how wages and the prices of food in 301 A. D. Compare withthose of to-day. In the two tables which follow, such a comparison isattempted for some of the more important articles and occupations. 

 Articles of Food[90]

 Price in 301 A. D. Price in 1906 A. D. 

 Wheat, per bushel 33. 6 cents $1. 19[91] Rye, per bushel 45 " 79 cents[91] Beans, per bushel 45 " $3. 20 Barley, per bushel 74. 5 " 55 cents[91] Vinegar, per quart 4. 3 " 5-7 " Fresh pork, per pound 7. 3 " 14-16 " Beef, per pound 4. 9 " { 9-12 " {15-18 " Mutton, per pound 4. 9 " 13-16 " Ham, per pound 12 " 18-25 " Fowls, per pair 26 " Fowls, per pound 14-18 " Butter, per pound 9. 8 " 26-32 " Fish, river, fresh, per pound 7. 3 " 12-15 " Fish, sea, fresh, per pound 9-14 " 8-14 cents Fish, salt, per pound 8. 3 " 8-15 " Cheese, per pound 7. 3 " 17-20 " Eggs, per dozen 5. 1 " 25-30 " Milk, cow's, per quart 6-8 " Milk, sheep's, per quart 6 "

 Wages Per Day

 Unskilled workman 10. 8 cents (k)[92] $1. 20-2. 24[93] Bricklayer 21. 6 " (k) 4. 50-6. 50 Carpenter 21. 6 " (k) 2. 50-4. 00 Stone-mason 21. 6 " (k) 3. 70-4. 90 Painter 32. 4 " (k) 2. 75-4. 00 Blacksmith 21. 6 " (k) 2. 15-3. 20 Ship-builder 21-26 " (k) 2. 15-3. 50

We are not so much concerned in knowing the prices of meat, fish, eggs, and flour in 301 and 1911 A. D. As we are in finding out whether the Romanor the American workman could buy more of these commodities with thereturns for his labor. A starting point for such an estimate is furnishedby the Eighteenth Annual Report of the Commissioner of Labor, on the "Costof Living and Retail Prices of Food" (1903), and by Bulletin No. 77 of theBureau of Labor (1908). In the first of these documents (pp. 582, 583) theexpenditure for rent, fuel, food, and other necessities of life in 11, 156normal American families whose incomes range from $200 to $1, 200 per yearis given. In the other report (p. 344 _f. _) similar statistics are givenfor 1, 944 English urban families. In the first case the average amountspent per year was $617, of which $266, or a little less than a half ofthe entire income, was used in the purchase of food. The statistics forEngland show a somewhat larger relative amount spent for food. Almostexactly one-third of this expenditure for the normal American family wasfor meat and fish. [94] Now, if we take the wages of the Roman carpenter, for instance, as 21 cents per day, and add one-fourth or one-third for his"keep, " those of the same American workman as $2. 50 to $4. 00, it is clearthat the former received only a ninth or a fifteenth as much as thelatter, while the average price of pork, beef, mutton, and ham (7. 3 cents)in 301 A. D. Was about a third of the average (19. 6 cents) of the samearticles to-day. The relative averages of wheat, rye, and barley make astill worse showing for ancient times while fresh fish was nearly as highin Diocletian's time as it is in our own day. The ancient and modernprices of butter and eggs stand at the ratio of one to three and one tosix respectively. For the urban workman, then, in the fourth century, conditions of life must have been almost intolerable, and it is hard tounderstand how he managed to keep soul and body together, when almost allthe nutritious articles of food were beyond his means. The taste of meat, fish, butter, and eggs must have been almost unknown to him, and probablyeven the coarse bread and vegetables on which he lived were limited inamount. The peasant proprietor who could raise his own cattle and grainwould not find the burden so hard to bear. 

Only one question remains for us to answer. Did Diocletian succeed in hisbold attempt to reduce the cost of living? Fortunately the answer is givenus by Lactantius in the book which he wrote in 313-314 A. D. , "On theDeaths of Those Who Persecuted (the Christians). " The title ofLactantius's work would not lead us to expect a very sympathetic treatmentof Diocletian, the arch-persecutor, but his account of the actual outcomeof the incident is hardly open to question. In Chapter VII of histreatise, after setting forth the iniquities of the Emperor in constantlyimposing new burdens on the people, he writes: "And when he had brought ona state of exceeding high prices by his different acts of injustice, hetried to fix by law the prices of articles offered for sale. Thereupon, for the veriest trifles much blood was shed, and out of fear nothing wasoffered for sale, and the scarcity grew much worse, until, after the deathof many persons, the law was repealed from mere necessity. " Thus came toan end this early effort to reduce the high cost of living. Sixty yearslater the Emperor Julian made a similar attempt on a small scale. He fixedthe price of corn for the people of Antioch by an edict. The holders ofgrain hoarded their stock. The Emperor brought supplies of it into thecity from Egypt and elsewhere and sold it at the legal price. It wasbought up by speculators, and in the end Julian, like Diocletian, had toacknowledge his inability to cope with an economic law. 

Private Benefactions and Their Effect on the Municipal Life of the Romans

In the early days the authority of the Roman father over his wife, hissons, and his daughters was absolute. He did what seemed to him good forhis children. His oversight and care extended to all the affairs of theirlives. The state was modelled on the family and took over the autocraticpower of the paterfamilias. It is natural to think of it, therefore, as apaternal government, and the readiness with which the Roman subordinatedhis own will and sacrificed his personal interests to those of thecommunity seems to show his acceptance of this theory of his relation tothe government. But this conception is correct in part only. A paternalgovernment seeks to foster all the common interests of its people and toprovide for their common needs. This the Roman state did not try to do, and if we think of it as a paternal government, in the ordinary meaningof that term, we lose sight of the partnership between state supervisionand individual enterprise in ministering to the common needs and desires, which was one of the marked features of Roman life. In fact, thegratification of the individual citizen's desire for those things which hecould not secure for himself depended in the Roman Empire, as it dependsin this country, not solely on state support, but in part on state aid, and in part on private generosity. We see the truth of this very clearlyin studying the history of the Roman city. The phase of Roman life whichwe have just noted may not fit into the ideas of Roman society which wehave hitherto held, but we can understand it as no other people can, because in the United States and in England we are accustomed to theco-operation of private initiative and state action in the establishmentand maintenance of universities, libraries, museums, and all sorts ofcharitable institutions. 

If we look at the growth of private munificence under the Republic, weshall see that citizens showed their generosity particularly in theconstruction of public buildings, partly or entirely at their ownexpense. In this way some of the basilicas in Rome and elsewhere whichserved as courts of justice and halls of exchange were constructed. Thegreat Basilica Æmilia, for instance, whose remains may be seen in theForum to-day, was constructed by an Æmilius in the second century beforeour era, and was accepted as a charge by his descendants to be kept incondition and improved at the expense of the Æmilian family. Undersomewhat similar conditions Pompey built the great theatre which bore hisname, the first permanent theatre to be built in Rome, and alwaysconsidered one of the wonders of the city. The cost of this structure wasprobably covered by the treasure which he brought back from his campaignsin the East. In using the spoils of a successful war to constructbuildings or memorials in Rome, he was following the example of Mummius, the conqueror of Corinth, and other great generals who had preceded him. The purely philanthropic motive does not bulk largely in these gifts tothe citizens, because the people whose armies had won the victories werepart owners at least of the spoils, and because the victorious leader whobuilt the structure was actuated more by the hope of transmitting thememory of his achievements to posterity in some conspicuous andimperishable monument than by a desire to benefit his fellow citizens. 

These two motives, the one egoistic and the other altruistic, actuated allthe Roman emperors in varying degrees. The activity of Augustus in suchmatters comes out clearly in the record of his reign, which he has left usin his own words. This remarkable bit of autobiography, known as the"Deeds of the Deified Augustus, " the Emperor had engraved on bronzetablets, placed in front of his mausoleum. The original has disappeared, but fortunately a copy of it has been found on the walls of a ruinedtemple at Ancyra, in Asia Minor, and furnishes us abundant proof of thegreat improvements which he made in the city of Rome. We are told in itthat from booty he paid for the construction of the Forum of Augustus, which was some four hundred feet long, three hundred wide, and wassurrounded by a wall one hundred and twenty feet high, covered on theinside with marble and stucco. Enclosed within it and built with fundscoming from the same source was the magnificent temple of Mars theAvenger, which had as its principal trophies the Roman standards recoveredfrom the Parthians. This forum and temple are only two items in the longlist of public improvements which Augustus records in his imperialepitaph, for, as he proudly writes: "In my sixth consulship, acting undera decree of the senate, I restored eighty-two temples in the city, neglecting no temple which needed repair at the time. " Besides thetemples, he mentions a large number of theatres, porticos, basilicas, aqueducts, roads, and bridges which he built in Rome or in Italy outsidethe city. 

But the Roman people had come to look for acts of generosity from theirpolitical as well as from their military leaders, and this factor, too, must be taken into account in the case of Augustus. In the closing yearsof the Republic, candidates for office and men elected to office saw thatone of the most effective ways of winning and holding their popularity wasto give public entertainments, and they vied with one another in thecostliness of the games and pageants which they gave the people. Thewell-known case of Cæsar will be recalled, who, during his term as ædile, or commissioner of public works, bankrupted himself by his lavishexpenditures on public improvements, and on the games, in which heintroduced three hundred and twenty pairs of gladiators for the amusementof the people. In his book, "On the Offices, " Cicero tells us of a thriftyrich man, named Mamercus, who aspired to public office, but avoided takingthe ædileship, which stood in the regular sequence of minor offices, inorder that he might escape the heavy outlay for public entertainmentexpected of the ædile. As a consequence, when later he came up for theconsulship, the people punished him by defeating him at the polls. Tocheck the growth of these methods of securing votes, Cicero, in hisconsulship, brought in a corrupt practices act, which forbade citizens togive gladiatorial exhibitions within two years of any election in whichthey were candidates. We may doubt if this measure was effective. TheRoman was as clever as the American politician in accomplishing hispurpose without going outside the law. Perhaps an incident in the life ofCicero's young friend, Curio, is a case in point. It was an old Romancustom to celebrate the ninth day after a burial as a solemn familyfestival, and some time in the second century before our era the practicegrew up of giving gladiatorial contests on these occasions. The versatileCurio, following this practice, testified his respect for his father'smemory by giving the people such elaborate games that he never escapedfrom the financial difficulties in which they involved him. However, thistribute of pious affection greatly enhanced his popularity, and perhapsdid not expose him to the rigors of Cicero's law. 

These gifts from generals, from distinguished citizens, and fromcandidates for office do not go far to prove a generous or philanthropicspirit on the part of the donors, but they show clearly enough that thepractice of giving large sums of money to embellish the city, and toplease the public, had grown up under the Republic, and that the people ofRome had come to regard it as the duty of their distinguished fellowcitizens to beautify the city and minister to their needs and pleasures bygenerous private contributions. 

All these gifts were for the city of Rome, and for the people of the city, not for the Empire, nor for Italy. This is characteristic of ancientgenerosity or philanthropy, that its recipients are commonly the peopleof a single town, usually the donor's native town. It is one of manyindications of the fact that the Roman thought of his city as the state, and even under the Empire he rarely extended the scope of his benefactionsbeyond the walls of a particular town. The small cities and villagesthroughout the West reproduced the capital in miniature. Each was a littleworld in itself. Each of them not only had its forum, its temples, colonnades, baths, theatres, and arenas, but also developed a politicaland social organization like that of the city of Rome. It had its ownlocal chief magistrates, distinguished by their official robes andinsignia of office, and its senators, who enjoyed the privilege ofoccupying special seats in the theatre, and it was natural that the commonpeople at Ostia, Ariminum, or Lugudunum, like those at Rome, should expectfrom those whom fortune had favored some return for the distinctions whichthey enjoyed. In this way the prosperous in each little town came to feela sense of obligation to their native place, and this feeling of civicpride and responsibility was strengthened by the same spirit of rivalrybetween different villages that the Italian towns of the Middle Ages seemto have inherited from their ancestors, a spirit of rivalry which madeeach one eager to surpass the others in its beauty and attractiveness. Perhaps there have never been so many beautiful towns in any other periodin history as there were in the Roman Empire, during the second century ofour era, and their attractive features--their colonnades, temples, fountains, and works of art--were due in large measure to the generosityof private citizens. We can make this statement with considerableconfidence, because these benefactions are recorded for us on innumerabletablets of stone and bronze, scattered throughout the Empire. 

These contributions not only helped to meet the cost of building temples, colonnades, and other structures, but they were often intended to cover apart of the running expenses of the city. This is one of the novelfeatures of Roman municipal life. We can understand the motives whichwould lead a citizen of New York or Boston to build a museum or an arch inhis native city. Such a structure would serve as a monument to him; itwould give distinction to the city, and it would give him and his fellowcitizens æsthetic satisfaction tion But if a rich New Yorker should givea large sum to mend the pavement in Union Square or extend the sewersystem on Canal Street, a judicial inquiry into his sanity would not bethought out of place. But the inscriptions show us that rich citizensthroughout the Roman Empire frequently made large contributions for justsuch unromantic purposes. It is unfortunate that a record of the annualincome and expenses of some Italian or Gallic town has not come down tous. It would be interesting, for instance, to compare the budget of Mantuaor Ancona, in the first century of our era, with that of Princeton orCambridge in the twentieth. But, although we rarely know the sums whichwere expended for particular purposes, a mere comparison of the objectsfor which they were spent is illuminating. The items in the ancient budgetwhich find no place in our own, and vice versa, are significant of certainstriking differences between ancient and modern municipal life. 

Common to the ancient and the modern city are expenditures for theconstruction and maintenance of public buildings, sewers, aqueducts, andstreets, but with these items the parallelism ends. The ancient objectsof expenditure which find no place in the budget of an American town arethe repair of the town walls, the maintenance of public worship, thesupport of the baths, the sale of grain at a low price, and the giving ofgames and theatrical performances. It is very clear that the ancientlegislator made certain provisions for the physical and spiritual welfareof his fellow citizens which find little or no place in our municipalarrangements to-day. If, among the sums spent for the various objectsmentioned above, we compare the amounts set apart for religion and for thebaths, we may come to the conclusion that the Roman read the old saying, "Cleanliness is next to godliness" in the amended form "Cleanliness isnext above godliness. " No city in the Empire seems to have been too smallor too poor to possess public baths, and how large an item of annualexpense their care was is clear from the fact that an article of theTheodosian code provided that cities should spend at least one-third oftheir incomes on the heating of the baths and the repair of the walls. Thegreat idle population of the city of Rome had to be provided with food atpublic expense. Otherwise riot and disorder would have followed, but inthe towns the situation was not so threatening, and probably furnishinggrain to the people did not constitute a regular item of expense. So faras public entertainments were concerned, the remains of theatres andamphitheatres in Pompeii, Fiesole, Aries, Orange, and at many other placesto-day furnish us visible evidence of the large sums which ancient townsmust have spent on plays and gladiatorial games. In the city of Rome inthe fourth century, there were one hundred and seventy-five days on whichperformances were given in the theatres, arenas, and amphitheatres. 

We have been looking at the items which were peculiar to the ancientbudget. Those which are missing from it are still more indicative, ifpossible, of differences between Roman character and modes of life andthose of to-day. Provision was rarely made for schools, museums, libraries, hospitals, almshouses, or for the lighting of streets. Nosalaries were paid to city officials; no expenditure was made for policeor for protection against fire, and the slaves whom every town ownedprobably took care of the public buildings and kept the streets clean. The failure of the ancient city government to provide for educational andcharitable institutions, means, as we shall see later, that in some casesthese matters were neglected, that in others they were left to privateenterprise. It appears strange that the admirable police and fire systemwhich Augustus introduced into Rome was not adopted throughout the Empire, but that does not seem to have been the case, and life and property musthave been exposed to great risks, especially on festival days and in theunlighted streets at night. The rich man could be protected by hisbodyguard of clients, and have his way lighted at night by the torcheswhich his slaves carried, but the little shopkeeper must have avoided thedark alleys or attached himself to the retinue of some powerful man. Someof us will recall in this connection the famous wall painting at Pompeiiwhich depicts the riotous contest between the Pompeians and the people ofthe neighboring town of Nuceria, at the Pompeian gladiatorial games in 50B. C. , when stones were thrown and weapons freely used. What scenes ofviolence and disorder there must have been on such occasions as these, without systematic police surveillance, can be readily imagined. 

The sums of money which an ancient or a modern city spends fall in twocategories--the amounts which are paid out for permanent improvements, andthe running expenses of the municipality. We have just been looking at thesecond class of expenditures, and our brief examination of it showsclearly enough that the ancient city took upon its shoulders only a smallpart of the burden which a modern municipality assumes. It will beinteresting now to see how far the municipal outlay for running expenseswas supplemented by private generosity, and to find out the extent towhich the cities were indebted to the same source for their permanentimprovements. A great deal of light is thrown on these two questions bythe hundreds of stone and bronze tablets which were set up by donorsthemselves or by grateful cities to commemorate the gifts made to them. The responsibility which the rich Roman felt to spend his money for thepublic good was unequivocally stated by the poet Martial in one of hisepigrams toward the close of the first century of our era. The speaker inthe poem tells his friend Pastor why he is striving to be rich--not thathe may have broad estates, rich appointments, fine wines, or troops ofslaves, but "that he may give and build for the public good" ("ut donem, Pastor, et ædificem"), and this feeling of stewardship found expression ina steady outpouring of gifts in the interests of the people. 

The practice of giving may well have started with the town officials. Wehave already noticed that in Rome, under the Republic, candidates foroffice, in seeking votes, and magistrates, in return for the honors paidthem, not infrequently spent large sums on the people. In course of time, in the towns throughout the Empire this voluntary practice became a legalobligation resting on local officials. This fact is brought out in themunicipal charter of Urso, [95] the modern Osuna, in Spain. Half of thisdocument, engraved on tablets, was discovered in Spain about forty yearsago, and makes a very interesting contribution to our knowledge ofmunicipal life. A colony was sent out to Urso, in 44 B. C. , by JuliusCæsar, under the care of Mark Antony, and the municipal constitution ofthe colony was drawn up by one of these two men. In the seventietharticle, we read of the duumvirs, who were the chief magistrates: "Whoevershall be duumvirs, with the exception of those who shall have first beenelected after the passage of this law, let the aforesaid during theirmagistracy give a public entertainment or plays in honor of the gods andgoddesses Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, for four days, during the greaterpart of the day, so far as it may be done, at the discretion of the commoncouncillors, and on these games and this entertainment let each one ofthem spend from his own money not less than two thousand sesterces. " Thearticle which follows in the document provides that the ædiles, or theofficials next in rank, shall give gladiatorial games and plays for threedays, and one day of races in the circus, and for these entertainmentsthey also must spend not less than two thousand sesterces. 

Here we see the modern practice reversed. City officials, instead ofreceiving a salary for their services, not only serve without pay, but areactually required by law to make a public contribution. It will be noticedthat the law specified the minimum sum which a magistrate _must_ spend. The people put no limit on what he _might_ spend, and probably most of theduumvirs of Urso gave more than $80, or, making allowance for thedifference in the purchasing value of money, $250, for the entertainmentof the people. In fact a great many honorary inscriptions from other townstell us of officials who made generous additions to the sum required bylaw. So far as their purpose and results go, these expenditures may becompared with the "campaign contributions" made by candidates for officein this country. There is a strange likeness and unlikeness between thetwo. The modern politician makes his contribution before the election, theancient politician after it. In our day the money is expended largely toprovide for public meetings where the questions of the day shall bediscussed. In Roman times it was spent upon public improvements, and uponplays, dinners, and gladiatorial games. Among us public sentiment isaverse to the expenditure of large sums to secure an election. The Romansdesired and expected it, and those who were open-handed in this mattertook care to have a record of their gifts set down where it could be readby all men. 

On general grounds we should expect our system to have a better effect onthe intelligence and character of the people, and to secure betterofficials. The discussion of public questions, even in a partisan way, brings them to the attention of the people, sets the people thinking, andhelps to educate voters on political and economic matters. If we may drawan inference from the election posters in Pompeii, such subjects played asmall part in a city election under the Empire. It must have beendemoralizing, too, to a Pompeian or a citizen of Salona to vote for acandidate, not because he would make the most honest and able duumvir orædile among the men canvassing for the office, but because he had thelongest purse. How our sense of propriety would be shocked if the newlyelected mayor of Hartford or Montclair should give a gala performance inthe local theatre to his fellow-citizens or pay for a free exhibition by acircus troupe! But perhaps we should overcome our scruples and go, as thepeople of Pompeii did, and perhaps our consciences would be completelysalved if the aforesaid mayor proceeded to lay a new pavement in MainStreet, to erect a fountain on the Green, or stucco the city hall. Naturally only rich men could be elected to office in Roman towns, and inthis respect the same advantages and disadvantages attach to the Romansystem as we find in the practice which the English have followed up tothe present time of paying no salary to members of the House of Commons, and in our own practice of letting our ambassadors meet a large part oftheir legitimate expenses. 

The large gifts made to their native towns by rich men elected to publicoffice set an example which private citizens of means followed in anextraordinary way. Sometimes they gave statues, or baths, or fountains, orporticos, and sometimes they provided for games, or plays, or dinners, orlottery tickets. Perhaps nothing can convey to our minds so clear animpression of the motives of the donors, the variety and number of thegifts, and their probable effect on the character of the people as to readtwo or three specimens of these dedicatory inscriptions. The citizens ofLanuvium, near Rome, set up a monument in honor of a certain Valerius, "because he cleaned out and restored the water courses for a distance ofthree miles, put the pipes in position again, and restored the two bathsfor men and the bath for women, all at his own expense. "[96] A citizen ofSinuessa leaves this record: "Lucius Papius Pollio, the duumvir, to hisfather, Lucius Papius. Cakes and mead to all the citizens of Sinuessa andCædici; gladiatorial games and a dinner for the people of Sinuessa and thePapian clan; a monument at a cost of 12, 000 sesterces. "[97] Such acatholic provision to suit all tastes should certainly have served to keephis father from being forgotten. A citizen of Beneventum lays claim todistinction because "he first scattered tickets among the people by meansof which he distributed gold, silver, bronze, linen garments, and otherthings. "[98] The people of Telesia, a little town in Campania, pay thistribute to their distinguished patron: "To Titus Fabius Severus, patron ofthe town, for his services at home and abroad, and because he, first ofall those who have instituted games, gave at his own expense five wildbeasts from Africa, a company of gladiators, and a splendid equipment, the senate and citizens have most gladly granted a statue. "[99] The officeof patron was a characteristic Roman institution. Cities and villageselected to this position some distinguished Roman senator or knight, andhe looked out for the interests of the community in legal matters andotherwise. 

This distinction was held in high esteem, and recipients of it oftentestified their appreciation by generous gifts to the town which theyrepresented, or were chosen patrons because of their benefactions. Thisfact is illustrated in the following inscription from Spoletium: "GaiusTorasius Severus, the son of Gaius, of the Horatian tribe, quattuorvirwith judicial power, augur, in his own name, and in the name of his sonPublius Meclonius Proculus Torasianus, the pontiff, erected (this) on hisland (?) and at his own expense. He also gave the people 250, 000 sestercesto celebrate his son's birthday, from the income of which each year, onthe third day before the Kalends of September, the members of the CommonCouncil are to dine in public, and each citizen who is present is toreceive eight _asses_. He also gave to the seviri Augustales, and to thepriests of the Lares, and to the overseers of the city wards, 120, 000sesterces, in order that from the income of this sum they might have apublic dinner on the same day. Him, for his services to the community, thesenate has chosen patron of the town. "[100] A town commonly showed itsappreciation of what had been done for it by setting up a statue in honorof its benefactor, as was done in the case of Fabius Severus, and thepublic squares of Italian and provincial towns must have been adorned withmany works of art of this sort. It amuses one to find at the bottom ofsome of the commemorative tablets attached to these statues, the statementthat the man distinguished in this way, "contented with the honor, hashimself defrayed the cost of the monument. " To pay for a populartestimonial to one's generosity is indeed generosity in its perfect form. The statues themselves have disappeared along with the towns which erectedthem, but the tablets remain, and by a strange dispensation of fate themonument which a town has set up to perpetuate the memory of one of itscitizens is sometimes the only record we have of the town's own existence. 

The motives which actuated the giver were of a mixed character, as thesememorials indicate. Sometimes it was desire for the applause of his fellowcitizens, or for posthumous fame, which influenced a donor; sometimescivic pride and affection. In many cases it was the compelling force ofcustom, backed up now and then, as we can see from the inscriptions, bythe urgent demands of the populace. Out of this last sentiment there wouldnaturally grow a sense of the obligation imposed by the possession ofwealth, and this feeling is closely allied to pure generosity. In fact, itwould probably be wrong not to count this among the original motives whichactuated men in making their gifts, because the spirit of devotion to thestate and to the community was a marked characteristic of Romans in therepublican period. 

The effects which this practice of giving had on municipal life and on thecharacter of the people are not without importance and interest. Thelavish expenditure expected of a magistrate and the ever-increasingfinancial obligations laid upon him by the central government mademunicipal offices such an intolerable burden that the charter of Urso ofthe first century A. D. , which has been mentioned above, has to resort tovarious ingenious devices to compel men to hold them. The position of amember of a town council was still worse. He was not only expected tocontribute generously to the embellishment and support of his native city, but he was also held responsible for the collection of the imperial taxes. As prosperity declined he found this an increasingly difficult thing todo, and seats in the local senate were undesirable. The central governmentcould not allow the men responsible for its revenues to escape theirresponsibility. Consequently, it interposed and forced them to accept thehonor. Some of them enlisted in the army, or even fled into the desert, but whenever they were found they were brought back to take up theirpositions again. In the fourth century, service in the common council waseven made a penalty imposed upon criminals. Finally, it became hereditary, and it is an amusing but pathetic thing to find that this honor, so highlyprized in the early period, became in the end a form of serfdom. 

We have been looking at the effects of private generosity on officiallife. Its results for the private citizen are not so clear, but it musthave contributed to that decline of independence and of personalresponsibility which is so marked a feature of the later Empire. Themasses contributed little, if anything, to the running expenses ofgovernment and the improvement of the city. The burdens fell largely uponthe rich. It was a system of quasi-socialism. Those who had, provided forthose who had not--not merely markets and temples, and colonnades, andbaths, but oil for the baths, games, plays, and gratuities of money. Sincetheir needs were largely met by others, the people lost more and more thehabit of providing for themselves and the ability to do so. Whenprosperity declined, and the wealthy could no more assist them, the endcame. 

The objects for which donors gave their money seem to prove theessentially materialistic character of Roman civilization, because we mustassume that those who gave knew the tastes of the people. Sometimes menlike Pliny the Younger gave money for libraries or schools, but such giftsseem to have been relatively infrequent. Benefactions are commonlyintended to satisfy the material needs or gratify the desire of thepeople for pleasure. 

Under the old régime charity was unknown. There were neither almshousesnor hospitals, and scholars have called attention to the fact that eventhe doles of corn which the state gave were granted to citizens only. Mereresidents or strangers were left altogether out of consideration, and theywere rarely included within the scope of private benevolence. In thefollowing chapter, in discussing the trades-guilds, we shall see that eventhey made no provision for the widow or orphan, or for their sick ordisabled members. It was not until Christianity came that the poor and theneedy were helped because of their poverty and need. 

Some Reflections on Corporations and Trades-Guilds

In a recent paper on "Ancient and Modern Imperialism, " read before theBritish Classical Association, Lord Cromer, England's late consul-generalin Egypt, notes certain points of resemblance between the English and theRoman methods of dealing with alien peoples. With the Greeks no suchpoints of contact exist, because, as he remarks, "not only was theimperial idea foreign to the Greek mind; the federal conception wasequally strange. " This similarity between the political character andmethods of the Romans and Anglo-Saxons strikes any one who reads thehistory of the two peoples side by side. They show the same genius forgovernment at home, and a like success in conquering and holding foreignlands, and in assimilating alien peoples. Certain qualities which theyhave in common contribute to these like results. Both the Roman and theAnglo-Saxon have been men of affairs; both have shown great skill inadapting means to an end, and each has driven straight at the immediateobject to be accomplished without paying much heed to logic or politicaltheory. A Roman statesman would have said "Amen!" to the Englishman'spious hope that "his countrymen might never become consistent or logicalin politics. " Perhaps the willingness of the average Roman to co-operatewith his fellows, and his skill in forming an organization suitable forthe purpose in hand, go farther than any of the other qualities mentionedabove to account for his success in governing other peoples as well as hisown nation. 

Our recognition of these striking points of resemblance between the Romansand ourselves has come from a comparative study of the political life ofthe two peoples. But the likeness to each other of the Romans andAnglo-Saxons, especially in the matter of associating themselves togetherfor a common object, is still more apparent in their methods of dealingwith private affairs. A characteristic and amusing illustration of theworking of this tendency among the Romans is furnished by the earlyhistory of monasticism in the Roman world. When the Oriental Christianhad convinced himself of the vanity of the world, he said: "It is theweakness of the flesh and the enticements of the wicked which tempt me tosin. Therefore I will withdraw from the world and mortify the flesh. " Thisis the spirit which drove him into the desert or the mountains, to live ina cave with a lion or a wolf for his sole companion. This is the spiritwhich took St. Anthony into a solitary place in Egypt. It led St. SimeonStylites to secure a more perfect sense of aloofness from the world, and agreater security from contact with it by spending the last thirty years ofhis life on the top of a pillar near Antioch. In the Western world, whichwas thoroughly imbued with the Roman spirit, the Christian who held thesame view as his Eastern brother of the evil results flowing fromintercourse with his fellow men, also withdrew from the world, but hewithdrew in the company of a group of men who shared his opinions on theefficacy of a life of solitude. A delightful instance of the triumph ofthe principle of association over logic or theory! We Americans canunderstand perfectly the compelling force of the principle, even in such acase as this, and we should justify the Roman's action on the score ofpractical common sense. We have organizations for almost every conceivablepolitical, social, literary, and economic purpose. In fact, it would behard to mention an object for which it would not be possible to organize aclub, a society, a league, a guild, or a union. In a similar way theRomans had organizations of capitalists and laborers, religiousassociations, political and social clubs, and leagues of veterans. 

So far as organizations of capitalists are concerned, their history isclosely bound up with that of imperialism. They come to our notice for thefirst time during the wars with Carthage, when Rome made her earliestacquisitions outside of Italy. In his account of the campaigns in Spainagainst Hannibal's lieutenants, Livy tells us[101] of the great straits towhich the Roman army was reduced for its pay, food, and clothing. The needwas urgent, but the treasury was empty, and the people poverty-stricken. In this emergency the prætor called a public meeting, laid before it thesituation in Spain, and, appealing to the joint-stock companies to come tothe relief of the state, appointed a day when proposals could be made tofurnish what was required by the army. On the appointed day three_societates_, or corporations, offered to make the necessary loans to thegovernment; their offers were accepted, and the needs of the army weremet. The transaction reminds us of similar emergencies in our civil war, when syndicates of bankers came to the support of the government. Thepresent-day tendency to question the motives of all corporations dealingwith the government does not seem to color Livy's interpretation of theincident, for he cites it in proof of the patriotic spirit which ranthrough all classes in the face of the struggle with Carthage. Theappearance of the joint-stock company at the moment when the policy ofterritorial expansion is coming to the front is significant of the closeconnection which existed later between imperialism and corporate finance, but the later relations of corporations to the public interests cannotalways be interpreted in so charitable a fashion. 

Our public-service companies find no counter-part in antiquity, but theRoman societies for the collection of taxes bear a resemblance to thesemodern organizations of capital in the nature of the franchises, as wemay call them, and the special privileges which they had. The practicewhich the Roman government followed of letting out to the highest bidderthe privilege of collecting the taxes in each of the provinces, naturallygave a great impetus to the development of companies organized for thispurpose. Every new province added to the Empire opened a fresh field forcapitalistic enterprise, in the way not only of farming the taxes, butalso of loaning money, constructing public works, and leasing the minesbelonging to the state, and Roman politicians must have felt thesefinancial considerations steadily pushing them on to further conquests. 

But the interest of the companies did not end when Roman eagles had beenplanted in a new region. It was necessary to have the provincialgovernment so managed as to help the agents of the companies in making asmuch money as possible out of the provincials, and Cicero's year asgovernor of Cilicia was made almost intolerable by the exactions whichthese agents practised on the Cilicians, and the pressure which theybrought to bear upon him and his subordinates. His letters to his intimatefriend, Atticus, during this period contain pathetic accounts of theembarrassing situations in which loaning companies and individualcapitalists at Rome placed him. On one occasion a certain Scaptius came tohim[102], armed with a strong letter of recommendation from the impeccableBrutus, and asked to be appointed prefect of Cyprus. His purpose was, byofficial pressure, to squeeze out of the people of Salamis, in Cyprus, adebt which they owed, running at forty-eight per cent interest. Uponmaking some inquiry into the previous history of Scaptius, Cicero learnedthat under his predecessor in Cilicia, this same Scaptius had secured anappointment as prefect of Cyprus, and backed by his official power, tocollect money due his company, had shut up the members of the Salaminiancommon council in their town hall until five of them died of starvation. In domestic politics the companies played an equally important rôle. Therelations which existed between the "interests" and political leaders wereas close in ancient times as they are to-day, and corporations were asunpartisan in Rome in their political alliances as they are in the UnitedStates. They impartially supported the democratic platforms of GaiusGracchus and Julius Cæsar in return for valuable concessions, and backedthe candidacy of the constitutionalist Pompey for the position ofcommander-in-chief of the fleets and armies acting against the Easternpirates, and against Mithridates, in like expectation of substantialreturns for their help. What gave the companies their influence at thepolls was the fact that their shares were very widely held by voters. Polybius, the Greek historian, writing of conditions at Rome in the secondcentury B. C. , gives us to understand that almost every citizen ownedshares in some joint-stock company[103]. Poor crops in Sicily, heavy rainsin Sardinia, an uprising in Gaul, or "a strike" in the Spanish mines wouldtouch the pocket of every middle-class Roman. 

In these circumstances it is hard to see how the Roman got on withoutstock quotations in the newspapers. But Cæsar's publication of the _ActaDiurna_, or proceedings of the senate and assembly, would take the placeof our newspapers in some respects, and the crowds which gathered at thepoints where these documents were posted, would remind us of the throngscollected in front of the bulletin in the window of a newspaper officewhen some exciting event has occurred. Couriers were constantly arrivingfrom the agents of corporations in Gaul, Spain, Africa, and Asia with thelatest news of industrial and financial enterprises in all these sections. What a scurrying of feet there must have been through the streets when thefirst news reached Rome of the insurrection of the proletariat in Asia in88 B. C. , and of the proclamation of Mithridates guaranteeing release fromhalf of their obligations to all debtors who should kill money-lenders!Asiatic stocks must have dropped almost to the zero point. We find noevidence of the existence of an organized stock exchange. Perhaps none wasnecessary, because the shares of stock do not seem to have beentransferable, but other financial business arising out of the organizationof these companies, like the loaning of money on stock, could betransacted reasonably well in the row of banking offices which ran alongone side of the Forum, and made it an ancient Wall Street or LombardStreet. 

"Trusts" founded to control prices troubled the Romans, as they troubleus to-day. There is an amusing reference to one of these tradecombinations as early as the third century before our era in the Captivesof Plautus. [104] The parasite in the play has been using his best quipsand his most effective leads to get an invitation to dinner, but he can'tprovoke a smile, to say nothing of extracting an invitation. In a highstate of indignation he threatens to prosecute the men who avoid being hishosts for entering into an unlawful combination like that of "the oildealers in the Velabrum. " Incidentally it is a rather interestinghistorical coincidence that the pioneer monopoly in Rome, as in our day, was an oil trust--in the time of Plautus, of course, an olive-oil trust. In the "Trickster, " which was presented in 191 B. C. , a character refers tothe mountains of grain which the dealers had in their warehouses. [105] Twoyears later the "corner" had become so effective that the governmentintervened, and the curule ædiles who had charge of the markets imposed aheavy fine on the grain speculators. [106] The case was apparentlyprosecuted under the Laws of the Twelve Tables of 450 B. C. , the MagnaCharta of Roman liberty. It would seem, therefore, that combinations inrestraint of trade were formed at a very early date in Rome, and perhapsDiocletian's attempt in the third century of our era to lower the cost ofliving by fixing the prices of all sorts of commodities was aimed in partat the same evil. As for government ownership, the Roman state made one ortwo essays in this field, notably in the case of mines, but withindifferent success. 

Labor was as completely organized as capital. [107] In fact the passion ofthe Romans for association shows itself even more clearly here, and itwould be possible to write their industrial history from a study of theirtrades-unions. The story of Rome carries the founding of these guilds backto the early days of the regal period. From the investigations ofWaltzing, Liebenam, and others their history can be made out inconsiderable detail. Roman tradition was delightfully systematic inassigning the founding of one set of institutions to one king and ofanother group to another king. Romulus, for instance, is the war king, andconcerns himself with military and political institutions. The secondking, Numa, is a man of peace, and is occupied throughout his reign withthe social and religious organization of his people. It was Numa whoestablished guilds of carpenters, dyers, shoemakers, tanners, workers incopper and gold, fluteplayers, and potters. The critical historian lookswith a sceptical eye on the story of the kings, and yet this list oftrades is just what we should expect to find in primitive Rome. There areno bakers or weavers, for instance, in the list. We know that in our owncolonial days the baking, spinning, and weaving were done at home, as theywould naturally have been when Rome was a community of shepherds andfarmers. As Roman civilization became more complex, industrialspecialization developed, and the number of guilds grew, but during theRepublic we cannot trace their growth very successfully for lack ofinformation about them. Corporations, as we have seen, played animportant part in politics, and their doings are chronicled in theliterature, like oratory and history, which deals with public questions, but the trades-guilds had little share in politics; they were made up ofthe obscure and weak, and consequently are rarely mentioned in thewritings of a Cicero or a Livy. 

It is only when the general passion for setting down records of all sortsof enterprises and incidents on imperishable materials came in with theEmpire that the story of the Roman trades-union can be clearly followed. It is a fortunate thing for us that this mania swept through the RomanEmpire, because it has given us some twenty-five hundred inscriptionsdealing with these organizations of workmen. These inscriptions disclosethe fact that there were more than eighty different trades organized intoguilds in the city of Rome alone. They included skilled and unskilledlaborers, from the porters, or _saccarii_, to the goldsmiths, or_aurifices_. The names of some of them, like the _pastillarii_, or guildof pastile-makers, and the _scabillarii_, or castanet-players, indicate ahigh degree of industrial specialization. From one man's tombstone eventhe conclusion seems to follow that he belonged to a union of what we mayperhaps call checker-board makers. The merchants formed trade associationsfreely. Dealers in oil, in wine, in fish, and in grain are found organizedall over the Empire. Even the perfumers, hay-dealers, and ragmen had theirsocieties. No line of distinction seems to be drawn between the artist andthe artisan. The mason and the sculptor were classed in the same categoryby Roman writers, so that we are not surprised to find unions of men inboth occupations. A curious distinction between the professions is alsobrought out by these guild inscriptions. There are unions made up ofphysicians, but none of lawyers, for the lawyer in early times wassupposed to receive no remuneration for his services. In point of fact thephysician was on a lower social plane in Rome than he was even among ourancestors. The profession was followed almost exclusively by Greekfreedmen, as we can see from the records on their tombstones, and washighly specialized, if we may judge from the epitaphs of eye and eardoctors, surgeons, dentists, and veterinarians. To the same category withthe physician and sculptor belong the architect, the teacher, and thechemist. Men of these professions pursued the _artes liberales_, as theRomans put it, and constituted an aristocracy among those engaged in thetrades or lower professions. Below them in the hierarchy came those whogained a livelihood by the _artes ludicræ_, like the actor, professionaldancer, juggler, or gladiator, and in the lowest caste were thecarpenters, weavers, and other artisans whose occupations were _artesvulgares et sordidæ_. 

In the early part of this chapter the tendency of the Romans to formvoluntary associations was noted as a national characteristic. This factcomes out very clearly if we compare the number of trades-unions in theWestern world with those in Greece and the Orient. Our conclusions must bedrawn of course from the extant inscriptions which refer to guilds, andtime may have dealt more harshly with the stones in one place than inanother, or the Roman government may have given its consent to theestablishment of such organizations with more reluctance in one provincethan another; but, taking into account the fact that we have guildinscriptions from four hundred and seventy-five towns and villages in theEmpire, these elements of uncertainty in our conclusions are practicallyeliminated, and a fair comparison may be drawn between conditions in theEast and the West. If we pick out some of the more important towns in theGreek part of the Roman world, we find five guilds reported from Trallesin Caria, six from Smyrna, one from Alexandria, and eleven from Hierapolisin Phrygia. On the other hand, in the city of Rome there were more thanone hundred, in Brixia (modern Brescia) seventeen or more, in Lugudunum(Lyons) twenty at least, and in Canabæ, in the province of Dacia, five. These figures, taken at random for some of the larger towns in differentparts of the Empire, bring out the fact very clearly that the western andnorthern provinces readily accepted Roman ideas and showed the Romanspirit, as illustrated in their ability and willingness to co-operate fora common purpose, but that the Greek East was never Romanized. Even in thesettlements in Dacia, which continued under Roman rule only from 107 to270 A. D. , we find as many trades-unions as existed in Greek towns whichwere held by the Romans for three or four centuries. The comparativenumber of guilds and of guild inscriptions would, in fact, furnish uswith a rough test of the extent to which Rome impressed her civilizationon different parts of the Empire, even if we had no other criteria. Weshould know, for instance, that less progress had been made in Britainthan in Southern Gaul, that Salona in Dalmatia, Lugudunum in Gaul, andMogontiacum (Mainz) in Germany were important centres of Romancivilization. It is, of course, possible from a study of theseinscriptions to make out the most flourishing industries in the severaltowns, but with that we are not concerned here. 

These guilds which we have been considering were trades-unions in thesense that they were organizations made up of men working in the sametrade, but they differed from modern unions, and also from mediaevalguilds, in the objects for which they were formed. They made no attempt toraise wages, to improve working conditions, to limit the number ofapprentices, to develop skill and artistic taste in the craft, or tobetter the social or political position of the laborer. It was the needwhich their members felt for companionship, sympathy, and help in theemergencies of life, and the desire to give more meaning to their lives, that drew them together. These motives explain the provisions made forsocial gatherings, and for the burial of members, which were thecharacteristic features of most of the organizations. It is the socialside, for instance, which is indicated on a tombstone, found in a littletown of central Italy. After giving the name of the deceased, it reads:"He bequeathed to his guild, the rag-dealers, a thousand sesterces, fromthe income of which each year, on the festival of the Parentalia, not lessthan twelve men shall dine at his tomb. "[108] Another in northern Italyreads: "To Publius Etereius Quadratus, the son of Publius, of the _TribusQuirina_, Etereia Aristolais, his mother, has set up a statue, at whosededication she gave the customary banquet to the union of rag-dealers, andalso a sum of money, from the income of which annually, from this timeforth, on the birthday of Quadratus, April 9, where his remains have beenlaid, they should make a sacrifice, and should hold the customary banquetin the temple, and should bring roses in their season and cover and crownthe statue; which thing they have undertaken to do. "[109] The menu of oneof these dinners given in Dacia[110] has come down to us. It includes lamband pork, bread, salad, onions, and two kinds of wine. The cost of theentertainment amounted to one hundred and sixty-nine _denarii_, or abouttwenty-seven dollars, a sum which would probably have a purchasing valueto-day of from three to four times that amount. 

The "temple" or chapel referred to in these inscriptions was usuallysemicircular, and may have served as a model for the Christian oratories. The building usually stood in a little grove, and, with its accommodationsfor official meetings and dinners, served the same purpose as a modernclub-house. Besides the special gatherings for which some deceased memberor some rich patron provided, the guild met at fixed times during the yearto dine or for other social purposes. The income of the society, which wasmade up of the initiation fees and monthly dues of the members, and ofdonations, was supplemented now and then by a system of fines. At least, in an African inscription we read: "In the Curia of Jove. Done November27, in the consulship of Maternus and Atticus. . . . If any one shall wish tobe a flamen, he shall give three amphorae of wine, besides bread and saltand provisions. If any one shall wish to be a magister, he shall give twoamphorae of wine. . . . If any one shall have spoken disrespectfully to aflamen, or laid hands upon him, he shall pay two denarii. . . . If any oneshall have gone to fetch wine, and shall have made away with it, he shallgive double the amount. "[111]

The provision which burial societies made for their members is illustratedby the following epitaph:

"To the shade of Gaius Julius Filetio, born in Africa, a physician, wholived thirty-five years. Gaius Julius Filetus and Julia Euthenia, hisparents, have erected it to their very dear son. Also to JuliusAthenodorus, his brother, who lived thirty-five years. Euthenia set it up. He has been placed here, to whose burial the guild of rag-dealers hascontributed three hundred denarii. "[112] People of all ages have craved arespectable burial, and the pathetic picture which Horace gives us in oneof his Satires of the fate which befell the poor and friendless at theend of life, may well have led men of that class to make provisions whichwould protect them from such an experience, and it was not an unnaturalthing for these organizations to be made up of men working in the sametrade. The statutes of several guilds have come down to us. One found atLanuvium has articles dealing particularly with burial regulations. Theyread in part:[113]

"It has pleased the members, that whoever shall wish to join this guildshall pay an initiation fee of one hundred sesterces, and an amphora ofgood wine, as well as five _asses_ a month. Voted likewise, that if anyman shall not have paid his dues for six consecutive months, and if thelot common to all men has befallen him, his claim to a burial shall not beconsidered, even if he shall have so stipulated in his will. Votedlikewise, that if any man from this body of ours, having paid his dues, shall depart, there shall come to him from the treasury three hundredsesterces, from which sum fifty sesterces, which shall be divided at thefuneral pyre, shall go for the funeral rites. Furthermore, the obsequiesshall be performed on foot. "

Besides the need of comradeship, and the desire to provide for arespectable burial, we can see another motive which brought the weak andlowly together in these associations. They were oppressed by the sense oftheir own insignificance in society, and by the pitifully small part whichthey played in the affairs of the world. But if they could establish asociety of their own, with concerns peculiar to itself which they wouldadminister, and if they could create positions of honor and importance inthis organization, even the lowliest man in Rome would have a chance tosatisfy that craving to exercise power over others which all of us feel, to hold titles and distinctions, and to wear the insignia of office andrank. This motive worked itself out in the establishment of a completehierarchy of offices, as we saw in part in an African inscription givenabove. The Roman state was reproduced in miniature in these societies, with their popular assemblies, and their officials, who bore the honorabletitles of quæstor, curator, prætor, ædile, and so forth. 

To read these twenty-five hundred or more inscriptions from all parts ofthe Empire brings us close to the heart of the common people. We seetheir little ambitions, their jealousies, their fears, their gratitude forkindness, their own kindliness, and their loyalty to their fellows. All ofthem are anxious to be remembered after death, and provide, when they cando so, for the celebration of their birthdays by members of theassociation. A guild inscription in Latium, for instance, reads:[114]"Jan. 6, birthday of Publius Claudius Veratius Abascantianus, [who hascontributed] 6, 000 sesterces, [paying an annual interest of] 180 denarii. ""Jan. 25, birthday of Gargilius Felix, [who has contributed] 2, 000sesterces, [paying an annual interest of] 60 denarii, " and so on throughthe twelve months of the year. 

It is not entirely clear why the guilds never tried to bring pressure tobear on their employers to raise wages, or to improve their position bymeans of the strike, or by other methods with which we are familiarto-day. Perhaps the difference between the ancient and modern methods ofmanufacture helps us to understand this fact. In modern times mostarticles can be made much more cheaply by machinery than by hand, and theuse of water-power, of steam, and of electricity, and the invention ofelaborate machines, has led us to bring together a great many workmenunder one roof or in one factory. The men who are thus employed in asingle establishment work under common conditions, suffer the samedisadvantages, and are brought into such close relations with one anotherthat common action to improve their lot is natural. In ancient times, asmay be seen in the chapter on Diocletian's edict, machinery was almostunknown, and artisans worked singly in their own homes or in the houses oftheir employers, so that joint action to improve their condition wouldhardly be expected. 

Another factor which should probably be taken into account is theinfluence of slavery. This institution did not play the important rôleunder the Empire in depressing the free laborer which it is often supposedto have played, because it was steadily dying out; but an employer couldalways have recourse to slave labor to a limited extent, and thestruggling freedmen who had just come up from slavery were not likely tourge very strongly their claims for consideration. 

In this connection it is interesting to recall the fact that beforeslavery got a foothold in Rome, the masses in their struggle with theclasses used what we think of to-day as the most modern weapon employed inindustrial warfare. We can all remember the intense interest with which wewatched the novel experience which St. Petersburg underwent some six yearsago, when the general strike was instituted. And yet, if we accepttradition, that method of bringing the government and society to terms wasused twice by the Roman proletariat over two thousand years ago. Theplebeians, so the story goes, unable to get their economic and politicalrights, stopped work and withdrew from the city to the Sacred Mount. Theirabstention from labor did not mean the going out of street lamps, thesuspension of street-car traffic, and the closing of factories and shops, but, besides the loss of fighting men, it meant that no more shoes couldbe had, no more carpentry work done, and no more wine-jars made untilconcessions should be granted. But, having slaves to compete with it, andwith conditions which made organization difficult, free labor could nothope to rise, and the unions could take no serious step toward theimprovement of the condition of their members. The feeling of security onthis score which society had, warranted the government in allowing evenits own employees to organize, and we find unions of government clerks, messengers, and others. The Roman government was, therefore, never calledupon to solve the grave political and economic questions which France andItaly have had to face in late years in the threatened strikes of thestate railway and postal employees. 

We have just been noticing how the ancient differed from the moderntrades-union in the objects which it sought to obtain. The religiouscharacter which it took seems equally strange to us at first sight. Everyguild put itself under the protection of some deity and was closelyassociated with a cult. Silvanus, the god of the woods, was a naturalfavorite with the carpenters, Father Bacchus with the innkeepers, Vestawith the bakers, and Diana with those who hunted wild animals for thecircus. The reason for the choice of certain other divine patrons is notso clear. Why the cabmen of Tibur, for instance, picked out Hercules astheir tutelary deity, unless, like Horace in his Satires, the ancientcabman thought of him as the god of treasure-trove, and, therefore, likely to inspire the giving of generous tips, we cannot guess. Thereligious side of Roman trade associations will not surprise us when werecall the strong religious bent of the Roman character, and when weremember that no body of Romans would have thought of forming any kind ofan organization without securing the sanction and protection of the gods. The family, the clan, the state all had their protecting deities, to whomappropriate rites were paid on stated occasions. Speaking of the religiousside of these trade organizations naturally reminds one of the religiousassociations which sprang up in such large numbers toward the end of therepublican period and under the Empire. They lie outside the scope of thischapter, but, in the light of the issue which has arisen in recent yearsbetween religious associations and the governments of Italy, France, Spain, and Portugal, it is interesting to notice in passing that the Romanstate strove to hold in check many of the ancient religious associations, but not always with much success. As we have noticed, its attitude towardthe trade-guilds was not unfriendly. In the last days of the Republic, however, they began to enter politics, and were used very effectively inthe elections by political leaders in both parties. [115] In fact thefortunes of the city seemed likely to be controlled by political clubs, until severe legislation and the transfer of the elections in the earlyEmpire from the popular assemblies to the senate put an end to the use oftrade associations for political purposes. It was in the light of thisdevelopment that the government henceforth required all newly formedtrades-unions to secure official authorization. 

The change in the attitude of the state toward these organizations, astime went on, has been traced by Liebenam in his study of Romanassociations. The story of this change furnishes an interesting episode inthe history of special privilege, and may not be without profit to us. TheRoman government started with the assumption that the operation of thesevoluntary associations was a matter of public as well as of privateconcern, and could serve public interests. Therefore their members were tobe exempted from some of the burdens which the ordinary citizen bore. Itwas this reasoning, for instance, which led Trajan to set the bakers freefrom certain charges, and which influenced Hadrian to grant the samefavors to those associations of skippers which supplied Rome with food. Inthe light of our present-day discussion it is interesting also to findthat Marcus Aurelius granted them the right to manumit slaves and receivelegacies--that is, he made them juridical persons. But if theseassociations were to be fostered by law, in proportion as they promotedthe public welfare, it also followed logically that the state could put arestraining hand upon them when their development failed to serve publicinterests in the highest degree. Following this logical sequence, theEmperor Claudius, in his efforts to promote a more wholesome home life, orfor some other reason not known to us, forbade the eating-houses or thedelicatessen shops to sell cooked meats or warm water. Antoninus Pius, inhis paternal care for the unions, prescribed an age test and a physicaltest for those who wished to become members. Later, under the law a manwas allowed to join one guild only. Such a legal provision as this was anatural concomitant of the concession of privileges to the unions. If themembers of these organizations were to receive special favors from thestate, the state must see to it that the rolls were not padded. It must, in fact, have the right of final supervision of the list of members. Solong as industry flourished, and so long as the population increased, orat least remained stationary, this oversight by the government brought noappreciable ill results. But when financial conditions grew steadilyworse, when large tracts of land passed out of cultivation and thepopulation rapidly dwindled, the numbers in the trades-unions began todecline. The public services, constantly growing heavier, which the staterequired of the guilds in return for their privileges made the loss ofmembers still greater. This movement threatened the industrial interestsof the Empire and must be checked at all hazards. Consequently, takinganother logical step in the way of government regulation in the interestsof the public, the state forbade men to withdraw from the unions, and mademembership in a union hereditary. Henceforth the carpenter must alwaysremain a carpenter, the weaver a weaver, and the sons and grandsons of thecarpenter and the weaver must take up the occupation of their fathers, anda man is bound forever to his trade as the serf is to the soil. 

A Roman Politician

(Gaius Scribonius Curio)

The life of Gaius Scribonius Curio has so many points of interest for thestudent of Roman politics and society, that one is bewildered by thevariety of situations and experiences which it covers. His privatecharacter is made up of a _mélange_ of contradictory qualities, ofgenerosity, and profligacy, of sincerity and unscrupulousness. In hispublic life there is the same facile change of guiding principles. He isalternately a follower of Cicero and a supporter of his bitterest enemy, aTory and a Democrat, a recognized opponent of Cæsar and his trusted agentand adviser. His dramatic career stirs Lucan to one of his finestpassages, gives a touch of vigor to the prosaic narrative of Velleius, andeven leads the sedate Pliny to drop into satire. [116] Friend and foe havehelped to paint the picture. Cicero, the counsellor of his youth, writesof him and to him; Cælius, his bosom friend, analyzes his character;Cæsar leaves us a record of his military campaigns and death, whileVelleius and Appian recount his public and private sins. His story hasthis peculiar charm, that many of the incidents which make it up arerelated from day to day, as they occurred, by his contemporaries, Ciceroand Cælius, in the confidential letters which they wrote to their intimatefriends. With all the strange elements which entered into it, however, hiscareer is not an unusual one for the time in which he lived. Indeed it isalmost typical for the class to which he belonged, and in studying it weshall come to know something more of that group of brilliant young men, made up of Cælius, Antony, Dolabella, and others, who were drawn toCæsar's cause and played so large a part in bringing him success. The lifeof Curio not only illuminates social conditions in the first centurybefore our era, but it epitomizes and personifies the political history ofhis time and the last struggles of the Republic. It brings within itscompass the Catilinarian conspiracy, the agitation of Clodius, theformation of the first triumvirate, the rivalry of Cæsar and Pompey, andthe civil war, for in all these episodes Curio took an active part. 

Students of history have called attention to the striking way in which themembers of certain distinguished Roman families from generation togeneration kept up the political traditions of the family. The Claudianfamily is a striking case in point. Recognition of this fact helps us tounderstand Curio. His grandfather and his father were both prominentorators and politicians, as Cicero tells us in his Brutus. [117] Thegrandfather reached the praetorship in the year in which Gaius Gracchuswas done to death by his political opponents, while Curio pater wasconsul, in 76 B. C. , when the confusion which followed the breaking up ofthe constitution and of the party of Sulla was at its height. Cicero tellsus that the second Curio had "absolutely no knowledge of letters, " butthat he was one of the successful public speakers of his day, thanks tothe training which he had received at home. The third Curio, with whom weare concerned here, was prepared for public life as his father had been, for Cicero remarks of him that "although he had not been sufficientlytrained by teachers, he had a rare gift for oratory. "[118]

On this point Cicero could speak with authority, because Curio had verypossibly been one of his pupils in oratory and law. At least the veryintimate acquaintance which he has with Curio's character and theincidents of his life, the fatherly tone of Cicero's letters to him, andthe fact that Curio's nearest friends were among his disciples make this anatural inference. How intimate this relation was, one can see from thecharming picture which Cicero draws, in the introductory chapters of hisEssay on Friendship, of his own intercourse as a young man with thelearned Augur Scævola. Roman youth attended their counsellor and friendwhen he went to the forum to take part in public business, or sat with himat home discussing matters of public and private interest, as Cicero andhis companions sat on the bench in the garden with the pontiff Scævola, when he set forth the discourse of Lælius on friendship, and thus, out ofhis experience, the old man talked to the young men about him upon theconduct of life as well as upon the technical points of law and oratory. So many of the brilliant young politicians of this period had been broughtinto close relations with Cicero in this way, that when he found himselfforced out of politics by the Cæsarians, he whimsically writes to hisfriend Pætus that he is inclined to give up public life and open a school, and not more than a year before his death he pathetically complains thathe has not leisure even to take the waters at the spa, because of thedemands which are made upon him for lessons in oratory. 

If it did not take us too far from our chosen subject, it would beinteresting to stop and consider at length what effect Cicero's intimaterelations with these young men had upon his character, his politicalviews, his personal fortunes, and the course of politics. That they kepthim young in his interests and sympathies, that they kept his mind alertand receptive, comes out clearly in his letters to them, which are full ofjest and raillery and enthusiasm. That he never developed into a Tory, asCatulus did, or became indifferent to political conditions, as Lucullusdid, may have been due in part to his intimate association with this groupof enthusiastic young politicians. So far as his personal fortunes wereconcerned, when the struggle between Cæsar and Pompey came, these formerpupils of Cicero had an opportunity to show their attachment and theirgratitude to him. _They_ were followers of Cæsar, and _he_ cast in his lotwith Pompey. But this made no difference in their relations. To thecontrary, they gave him advice and help; in their most hurried journeysthey found time to visit him, and they interceded with Cæsar in hisbehalf. To determine whether he influenced the fortunes of the statethrough the effect which his teachings had upon these young men wouldrequire a paper by itself. Perhaps no man has ever had a betteropportunity than Cicero had in their cases to leave a lasting impressionon the political leaders of the coming generation. Curio, Cælius, Trebatius, Dolabella, Hirtius, and Pansa, who were Cæsar's lieutenants, inthe years when their characters were forming and their politicaltendencies were being determined, were moulded by Cicero. They were warmlyattached to him as their guide, philosopher, and friend, and they admiredhim as a writer, an orator, and an accomplished man of the world. Laterthey attached themselves to Cæsar, and while they were still under hisspell, Cicero's influence over their political course does not seem tocount for so much, but after Cæsar's death, the latent effect of Cicero'sfriendship and teaching makes itself clearly felt in the heroic servicewhich such men as Hirtius and Pansa rendered to the cause of the dyingRepublic. Possibly even Curio, had he been living, might have been found, after the Ides of March, fighting by the side of Cicero. 

Perhaps there is no better way of bringing out the intimate relationswhich Curio and the other young men of this group bore to the orator thanby translating one of Cicero's early letters to him. It was written in 53B. C. , when the young man was in Asia, just beginning his political careeras quæstor, or treasurer, on the staff of the governor of that province, and reads:[119]

"Although I grieve to have been suspected of neglect by you, still it hasnot been so annoying to me that my failure in duty is complained of by youas pleasant that it has been noticed, especially since, in so far as I amaccused, I am free from fault. But in so far as you intimate that youlong for a letter from me, you disclose that which I know well, it istrue, but that which is sweet and cherished--your love, I mean. In pointof fact, I never let any one pass, who I think will go to you, withoutgiving him a letter. For who is so indefatigable in writing as I am? Fromyou, on the other hand, twice or thrice at most have I received a letter, and then a very short one. Therefore, if you are an unjust judge towardme, I shall condemn you on the same charge, but if you shall be unwillingto have me do that, you must show yourself just to me. 

"But enough about letters; I have no fear of not satisfying you bywriting, especially if in that kind of activity you will not scorn myefforts. I _did_ grieve that you were away from us so long, inasmuch as Iwas deprived of the enjoyment of most delightful companionship, but now Irejoice because, in your absence, you have attained all your ends withoutsacrificing your dignity in the slightest degree, and because in all yourundertakings the outcome has corresponded to my desires. What my boundlessaffection for you forces me to urge upon you is briefly put. So great ahope is based, shall I say, on your spirit or on your abilities, that I donot hesitate to beseech and implore you to come back to us with acharacter so moulded that you may be able to preserve and maintain thisconfidence in you which you have aroused. And since forgetfulness shallnever blot out my remembrance of your services to me, I beg you toremember that whatever improvements may come in your fortune, or in yourstation in life, you would not have been able to secure them, if you hadnot as a boy in the old days followed my most loyal and loving counsels. Wherefore you ought to have such a feeling toward us, that we, who are nowgrowing heavy with years, may find rest in your love and your youth. "

In a most unexpected place, in one of Cicero's fiery invectives againstAntony, [120] we come upon an episode illustrating his affectionate care ofCurio during Curio's youth. The elder Curio lies upon a couch, prostratewith grief at the wreck which his son has brought on the house by hisdissolute life and his extravagance. The younger Curio throws himself atCicero's feet in tears. Like a foster-father, Cicero induces the youngman to break off his evil habits, and persuades the father to forgive himand pay his debts. This scene which he describes here, reminds us ofCurio's first appearance in Cicero's correspondence, where, with Curio'swild life in mind, he is spoken of as _filiola Curionis_. [121]

It is an appropriate thing that a man destined to lead so stormy a life asCurio did, should come on the stage as a leader in the wild turmoil of theClodian affair. What brought the two Curios to the front in this matter aschampions of Cicero's future enemy Clodius, it is not easy to say. It isinteresting to notice in passing, however, that our Curio enters politicsas a Democrat. He was the leader, in fact, of the younger element in thatparty, of the "Catilinarian crowd, " as Cicero styles them, and arrayedhimself against Lucullus, Hortensius, Messala, and other prominentConservatives. What the methods were which Curio and his followersadopted, Cicero graphically describes. [122] They blocked up the entrancesto the polling places with professional rowdies, and allowed only one kindof ballots to be distributed to the voters. This was in 61 B. C. , whenCurio can scarcely have been more than twenty-three years old. 

In the following year Cæsar was back in Rome from his successfulproprætorship in Spain, and found little difficulty in persuading Pompeyand Crassus to join him in forming that political compact which controlledthe fortunes of Rome for the next ten years. As a part of the agreement, Cæsar was made consul in 59 B. C. , and forced his radical legislationthrough the popular assembly in spite of the violent opposition of theConservatives. This is the year, too, of the candidacy of Clodius for thetribunate. Toward both these movements the attitude of Curio is puzzling. He reports to Cicero[123] that Clodius's main object in running for thetribunate is to repeal the legislation of Cæsar. It is strange that a manwho had been in the counsels of Clodius, and was so shrewd on otheroccasions in interpreting political motives, can have been so deceived. Wecan hardly believe that he was double-faced toward Cicero. We mustconclude, I think, that his strong dislike for Cæsar's policy andpolitical methods colored his view of the situation. His fierce oppositionto Cæsar is the other strange incident in this period of his life. Mostof the young men of the time, even those of good family, were enthusiasticsupporters of Cæsar. Curio, however, is bitterly opposed to him. [124]Perhaps he resented Cæsar's repression of freedom of speech, for he tellsCicero that the young men of Rome will not submit to the high-handedmethods of the triumvirs, or perhaps he imbibed his early dislike forCæsar from his father, whose sentiments are made clear enough by a savageepigram at Cæsar's expense, which Suetonius quotes from a speech of theelder Curio. [125] At all events he is the only man who dares speak out. Heis the idol of the Conservatives, and is surrounded by enthusiastic crowdswhenever he appears in the forum. He is now the recognized leader of theopposition to Cæsar, and a significant proof of this fact is furnished atthe great games given in honor of Apollo in the summer of 59. When Cæsarentered the theatre there was faint applause; when Curio entered the crowdrose and cheered him, "as they used to cheer Pompey when the commonwealthwas safe. "[126] Perhaps the mysterious Vettius episode, an ancient TitusOates affair, which belongs to this year, reflects the desire of thetriumvirs to get rid of Curio, and shows also their fear of hisopposition. This unscrupulous informer is said to have privately toldCurio of a plot against the life of Pompey, in the hope of involving himin the meshes of the plot. Curio denounced him to Pompey, and Vettius wasthrown into prison, where he was afterward found dead, before the truth ofthe matter could be brought out. Of course Curio's opposition to Cæsareffected little, except, perhaps, in drawing Cæsar's attention to him as aclever politician. 

To Curio's quæstorship in Asia reference has already been made. It fell in53 B. C. , and from his incumbency of this office we can make an approximateestimate of his date of birth. Thirty or thirty-one was probably theminimum age for holding the quæstorship at this time, so that Curio musthave been born about 84 B. C. From Cicero's letter to him, which has beengiven above, it would seem to follow that he had performed his duties inhis province with eminent success. During his absence from Rome hisfather died, and with his father's death one stimulating cause of hisdislike for Cæsar may have disappeared. To Curio's absence in his provincewe owe six of the charming letters which Cicero wrote to him. In one ofhis letters of this year he writes:[127] "There are many kinds of letters, as you well know, but one sort, for the sake of which letter-writing wasinvented, is best recognized: I mean letters written for the purpose ofinforming those who are not with us of whatever it may be to our advantageor to theirs that they should know. Surely you are not looking for aletter of this kind from me, for you have correspondents and messengersfrom home who report to you about your household. Moreover, so far as myconcerns go, there is absolutely nothing new. There are two kinds ofletters left which please me very much: one, of the informal and jestingsort; the other, serious and weighty. I do not feel that it is unbecomingto adopt either of these styles. Am I to jest with you by letter? On myword I do not think that there is a citizen who can laugh in these days. Or shall I write something of a more serious character? What subject isthere on which Cicero can write seriously to Curio, unless it beconcerning the commonwealth? And on this matter this is my situation: thatI neither dare to set down in writing that which I think, nor wish towrite what I do not think. "

The Romans felt the same indifference toward affairs in the provinces thatwe show in this country, unless their investments were in danger. Theywere wrapped up in their own concerns, and politics in Rome were soabsorbing in 53 B. C. That people in the city probably paid littleattention to the doings of a quæstor in the far-away province of Asia. But, as the time for Curio's return approached, men recalled the strikingrôle which he played in politics in earlier days, and wondered what coursehe would take when he came back. Events were moving rapidly toward acrisis. Julia, Cæsar's daughter, whom Pompey had married, died in thesummer of 54 B. C. , and Crassus was defeated and murdered by the Parthiansin 53 B. C. The death of Crassus brought Cæsar and Pompey face to face, andJulia's death broke one of the strongest bonds which had held these tworivals together. Cæsar's position, too, was rendered precarious by thedesperate struggle against the Belgæ, in which he was involved in 53 B. C. In Rome the political pot was boiling furiously. The city was in the gripof the bands of desperadoes hired by Milo and Clodius, who broke up theelections during 53 B. C. , so that the first of January, 52, arrived withno chief magistrates in the city. To a man of Curio's daring andversatility this situation offered almost unlimited possibilities, andrecognizing this fact, Cicero writes earnestly to him, [128] on the eve ofhis return, to enlist him in support of Milo's candidacy for theconsulship. Curio may have just arrived in the city when matters reached aclimax, for on January 18, 52 B. C. , Clodius was killed in a street brawlby the followers of Milo, and Pompey was soon after elected sole consul, to bring order out of the chaos, if possible. 

Curio was not called upon to support Milo for the consulship, becauseMilo's share in the murder of Clodius and the elevation of Pompey to hisextra-constitutional magistracy put an end to Milo's candidacy. What parthe took in supporting or in opposing Pompey's reform legislation of 52B. C. , and what share he had in the preliminary skirmishes between Cæsarand the senate during the early part of 51, we have no means of knowing. As the situation became more acute, however, toward the end of the year, we hear of him again as an active political leader. Cicero's absence fromRome from May, 51 to January, 49 B. C. , is a fortunate thing for us, for toit we owe the clever and gossipy political letters which his friend Cæliussent him from the capital. In one of these letters, written August 1, 51B. C. , we learn that Curio is a candidate for the tribunate for thefollowing year, and in it we find a keen analysis of the situation, and aninteresting, though tantaizingly brief, estimate of his character. Comingfrom an intimate friend of Curio, it is especially valuable to us. Cæliuswrites:[129] "He inspires with great alarm many people who do not know himand do not know how easily he can be influenced, but judging from my hopesand wishes, and from his present behavior, he will prefer to support theConservatives and the senate. In his present frame of mind he is simplybubbling over with this feeling. The source and reason of this attitudeof his lies in the fact that Cæsar, who is in the habit of winning thefriendship of men of the worst sort at any cost whatsoever, has shown agreat contempt for him. And of the whole affair it seems to me a mostdelightful outcome, and the view has been taken by the rest, too, to sucha degree that Curio, who does nothing after deliberation, seems to havefollowed a definite policy and definite plans in avoiding the traps ofthose who had made ready to oppose his election to the tribunate--I meanthe Lælii, Antonii, and powerful people of that sort. " Without strongconvictions or a settled policy, unscrupulous, impetuous, radical, andchangeable, these are the qualities which Cælius finds in Curio, and whatwe have seen of his career leads us to accept the correctness of thisestimate. In 61 he had been the champion of Clodius, and the leader of theyoung Democrats, while two years later we found him the opponent of Cæsar, and an ultra-Conservative. It is in the light of his knowledge of Curio'scharacter, and after receiving this letter from Cælius, that Cicero writesin December, 51 B. C. , to congratulate him upon his election to thetribunate. He begs him "to govern and direct his course in all matters inaccordance with his own judgment, and not to be carried away by the adviceof other people. " "I do not fear, " he says, "that you may do anything in afainthearted or stupid way, if you defend those policies which youyourself shall believe to be right. . . . Commune with yourself, takeyourself into counsel, hearken to yourself, determine your own policy. "

The other point in the letter of Cælius, his analysis of the politicalsituation, so far as Curio is concerned, is not so easy to follow. Cæliusevidently believes that Curio had coquetted with Cæsar and had beensnubbed by him, that his intrigues with Cæsar had at first led thearistocracy to oppose his candidacy, but that Cæsar's contemptuoustreatment of his advances had driven him into the arms of the senatorialparty. It is quite possible, however, that an understanding may have beenreached between Cæsar and Curio even at this early date, and that Cæsar'scoldness and Curio's conservatism may both have been assumed. This wouldenable Curio to pose as an independent leader, free from all obligationsto Cæsar, Pompey, or the Conservatives, and anxious to see fair play andsafeguard the interests of the whole people, an independent leader whowas driven over in the end to Cæsar's side by the selfish and factiousopposition of the senatorial party to his measures of reform and hisadvocacy of even-handed justice for both Cæsar and Pompey. [130]

Whether Curio came to an understanding with Cæsar before he entered on histribunate or not, his policy from the outset was well calculated to makethe transfer of his allegiance seem forced upon him, and to help him carryover to Cæsar the support of those who were not blinded by partisanfeelings. Before he had been in office a fortnight he brought in a billwhich would have annulled the law, passed by Cæsar in his consulship, assigning land in Campania to Pompey's veterans. [131] The repeal of thislaw had always been a favorite project with the Conservatives, and Curio'sproposal seemed to be directed equally against Cæsar and Pompey. InFebruary of 50 B. C. He brought in two bills whose reception facilitatedhis passage to the Cæsarian party. One of them provided for the repair ofthe roads, and, as Appian tells us, [132] although "he knew that he couldnot carry any such measure, he hoped that Pompey's friends would opposehim so that he might have that as an excuse for opposing Pompey. " Thesecond measure was to insert an intercalary month. It will be rememberedthat before Cæsar reformed the calendar, it was necessary to insert anextra month in alternate years, and 50 B. C. Was a year in whichintercalation was required. Curio's proposal was, therefore, a very properone. It would recommend itself also on the score of fairness. March 1 hadbeen set as the day on which the senate should take up the question ofCæsar's provinces, and after that date there would be little opportunityto consider other business. Now the intercalated month would have beeninserted, in accordance with the regular practice, after February 23, andby its insertion time would have been given for the proper discussion ofthe measures which Curio had proposed. Incidentally, and probably this wasin Curio's mind, the date when Cæsar might be called upon to surrender hisprovinces would be postponed. The proposal to insert the extra month wasdefeated, and Curio, blocked in every move by the partisan andunreasonable opposition of Pompey and the Conservatives, found thepretext for which lie had been working, and came out openly forCæsar. [133] Those who knew him well were not surprised at the transfer ofhis allegiance. It was probably in fear of such a move that Cicero hadurged him not to yield to the influence of others, and when Cicero inCilicia hears the news, he writes to his friend Cælius: "Is it possible?Curio is now defending Cæsar! Who would have expected it?--except myself, for, as surely as I hope to live, _I_ expected it. Heavens! how I miss thelaugh we might have had over it. " Looking back, as we can now, on thepolitical rôle which Curio played during the next twelve months, it seemsstrange that two of his intimate friends, who were such far-sightedpoliticians as Cicero and Cælius were, should have underestimated hispolitical ability so completely. It shows Cæsar's superior politicalsagacity that he clearly saw his qualities as a leader and tactician. Whatterms Cæsar was forced to make to secure his support we do not know. Gossip said that the price was sixty million sesterces, [134] or more thantwo and a half million dollars. He was undoubtedly in great straits. Theimmense sums which he had spent in celebrating funeral games in honor ofhis father had probably left him a bankrupt, and large amounts of moneywere paid for political services during the last years of the republic. Naturally proof of the transaction cannot be had, and even VelleiusPaterculus, in his savage arraignment of Curio, [135] does not feelconvinced of the truth of the story, but the tale is probable. 

It was high time for Cæsar to provide himself with an agent in Rome. Themonth of March was near at hand, when the long-awaited discussion of hisprovinces would come up in the senate. His political future, and hisrights as a citizen, depended upon his success in blocking the efforts ofthe senate to take his provinces from him before the end of the year, whenhe could step from the proconsulship to the consulship. An interval ofeven a month in private life between the two offices would be all that hisenemies would need for bringing political charges against him that wouldeffect his ruin. His displacement before the end of the year must beprevented, therefore, at all hazards. To this task Curio addressedhimself, and with surpassing adroitness. He did not come out at once asCæsar's champion. His function was to hold the scales true between Cæsarand Pompey, to protect the Commonwealth against the overweening ambitionand threatening policy of both men. He supported the proposal that Cæsarshould be called upon to surrender his army, but coupled with it thedemand that Pompey also should be required to give up his troops and hisproconsulship. The fairness of his plan appealed to the masses, who wouldnot tolerate a favor to Pompey at Cæsar's expense. It won over even amajority of the senate. The cleverness of his policy was clearly shown ata critical meeting of the senate in December of the year 50 B. C. Appiantells us the story:[136] "In the senate the opinion of each member wasasked, and Claudius craftily divided the question and took the votesseparately, thus: 'Shall Pompey be deprived of his command?' The majorityvoted against the latter proposition, and it was decreed that successorsto Cæsar should be sent. Then Curio put the question whether both shouldlay down their commands, and twenty-two voted in the negative, whilethree hundred and seventy went back to the opinion of Curio in order toavoid civil discord. Then Claudius dismissed the senate, exclaiming:'Enjoy your victory and have Cæsar for a master!'" The senate's action wasvetoed, and therefore had no legal value, but it put Cæsar and Curio inthe right and Pompey' s partisans in the wrong. 

As a part of his policy of defending Cæsar by calling attention to theexceptional position and the extra-constitutional course of Pompey, Curiooffset the Conservative attacks on Cæsar by public speeches fiercelyarraigning Pompey for what he had done during his consulship, five yearsbefore. When we recall Curio's biting wit and sarcasm, and theunpopularity of Pompey's high-handed methods of that year, we shallappreciate the effectiveness of this flank attack. 

Another weapon which he used freely was his unlimited right of veto astribune. As early as April Cælius appreciated how successful these tacticswould be, and he saw the dilemma in which they would put theConservatives, for he writes to Cicero: "This is what I have to tell you:if they put pressure at every point on Curio, Cæsar will defend his rightto exercise the veto; if, as seems likely, they shrink [from overrulinghim], Cæsar will stay [in his province] as long as he likes. " The vetopower was the weapon which he used against the senate at the meeting ofthat body on the first of December, to which reference has already beenmade. The elections in July had gone against Cæsar. Two Conservatives hadbeen returned as consuls. In the autumn the senate had found legal meansof depriving Cæsar of two of his legions. Talk of a compromise was dyingdown. Pompey, who had been desperately ill in the spring, had regained hisstrength. He had been exasperated by the savage attacks of Curio. Sensational stories of the movements of Cæsar's troops in the North werewhispered in the forum, and increased the tension. In the autumn, forinstance, Cæsar had occasion to pay a visit to the towns in northern Italyto thank them for their support of Mark Antony, his candidate for thetribunate, and the wild rumor flew to Rome that he had advanced fourlegions to Placentia, [137] that his march on the city had begun, andtumult and confusion followed. It was in these circumstances that theconsul Marcellus moved in the senate that successors be sent to take overCæsar's provinces, but the motion was blocked by the veto of Curio, whereupon the consul cried out: "If I am prevented by the vote of thesenate from taking steps for the public safety, I will take such steps onmy own responsibility as consul. " After saying this he darted out of thesenate and proceeded to the suburbs with his colleague, where he presenteda sword to Pompey, and said: "My colleague and I command you to marchagainst Cæsar in behalf of your country, and we give you for this purposethe army now at Capua, or in any other part of Italy, and whateveradditional forces you choose to levy. "[138] Curio had accomplished hispurpose. He had shown that Pompey as well as Cæsar was a menace to thestate; he had prevented Cæsar's recall; he had shown Antony, who was tosucceed him in the tribunate, how to exasperate the senate into usingcoercive measures against his sacrosanct person as tribune and thusjustify Cæsar's course in the war, and he had goaded the Conservativesinto taking the first overt step in the war by commissioning Pompey tobegin a campaign against Cæsar without any authorization from the senateor the people. 

The news of the unconstitutional step taken by Marcellus and Pompeyreached Rome December 19 or 20. Curio's work as tribune was done, and onthe twenty-first of the month he set out for the North to join his leader. The senate would be called together by the new consuls on January 1, andsince, before the reform in the calendar, December had only twenty-ninedays, there were left only eight days for Curio to reach Cæsar'shead-quarters, lay the situation before him, and return to the city withhis reply. Ravenna, where Cæsar had his head-quarters, was two hundred andforty miles from Rome. He covered the distance, apparently, in three days, spent perhaps two days with Cæsar, and was back in Rome again for themeeting of the senate on the morning of January 1. Consequently, hetravelled at the rate of seventy-five or eighty miles a day, twice therate of the ordinary Roman courier. 

We cannot regret too keenly the fact that we have no account of Curio'smeeting with Cæsar, and his recital to Cæsar of the course of events inRome. In drawing up the document which was prepared at this conference, Cæsar must have been largely influenced by the intimate knowledge whichCurio had of conditions in the capital, and of the temper of the senate. It was an ultimatum, and, when Curio presented it to the senate, that bodyaccepted the challenge, and called upon Cæsar to lay down his command on aspecified date or be declared a public enemy. Cæsar replied by crossingthe border of his province and occupying one town after another innorthern Italy in rapid succession. All this had been agreed upon in themeeting between Curio and Cæsar, and Velleius Paterculus[139] is probablyright in putting the responsibility for the war largely on the shouldersof Curio, who, as he says, brought to naught the fair terms of peace whichCæsar was ready to propose and Pompey to accept. The whole situationpoints to the conclusion that Cæsar did not desire war, and was notprepared for it. Had he anticipated its immediate outbreak, he wouldscarcely have let it arise when he had only one legion with him on theborder, while his other ten legions were a long distance away. 

From the outset Curio took an active part in the war which he had done somuch to bring about, and it was an appropriate thing that the closingevents in his life should have been recorded for us by his great patron, Cæsar, in his narrative of the Civil War. On the 18th or 19th of January, within ten days of the crossing of the Rubicon, we hear of his being sentwith a body of troops to occupy Iguvium, [140] and a month later he is incharge of one of the investing camps before the stronghold ofCorfinium. [141] With the fall of Corfinium, on the 21st of February, Cæsar's rapid march southward began, which swept the Pompeians out ofItaly within a month and gave Cæsar complete control of the peninsula. Inthat brilliant campaign Curio undoubtedly took an active part, for at theclose of it Cæsar gave him an independent commission for the occupation ofSicily and northern Africa. No more important command could have beengiven him, for Sicily and Africa were the granaries of Rome, and if thePompeians continued to hold them, the Cæsarians in Italy might be starvedinto submission. To this ill-fated campaign Cæsar devotes the latter halfof the second book of his Civil War. In the beginning of his account of ithe remarks: "Showing at the outset a total contempt for the militarystrength of his opponent, Publius Attius Varus, Curio crossed over fromSicily, accompanied by only two of the four legions originally given himby Cæsar, and by only five hundred cavalry. "[142] The estimate whichCælius had made of him was true, after all, at least in military affairs. He was bold and impetuous, and lacked a settled policy. Where daring andrapidity of movement could accomplish his purpose, he succeeded, but helacked patience in finding out the size and disposition of the enemy'sforces and calmness of judgment in comparing his own strength with that ofhis foe. It was this weakness in his character as a military leader whichled him to join battle with Varus and Juba's lieutenant, Saburra, withoutlearning beforehand, as he might have done, that Juba, with a large army, was encamped not six miles in the rear of Saburra. Curio's men weresurrounded by the enemy and cut down as they stood. His staff begged himto seek safety in flight, but, as Cæsar writes, [143] "He answered withouthesitation that, having lost the army which Cæsar had entrusted to hischarge, he would never return to look him in the face, and with thatanswer he died fighting. "

Three years later the fortunes of war brought Cæsar to northern Africa, and he traversed a part of the region where Curio's luckless campaign hadbeen carried on. With the stern eye of the trained soldier, he marked thefatal blunders which Curio had made, but he recalled also the charm of hispersonal qualities, and the defeat before Utica was forgotten in hisremembrance of the great victory which Curio had won for him, single-handed, in Rome. Even Lucan, a partisan of the senate which Curiohad flouted, cannot withhold his admiration for Curio's brilliant career, and his pity for Curio's tragic end. As he stands in imagination beforethe fallen Roman leader, he exclaims:[144] "Happy wouldst thou be, O Rome, and destined to bless thy people, had it pleased the gods above to guardthy liberty as it pleased them to avenge its loss. Lo! the noble body ofCurio, covered by no tomb, feeds the birds of Libya. But to thee, since itprofiteth not to pass in silence those deeds of thine which their ownglory defends forever 'gainst the decay of time, such tribute now we pay, O youth, as thy life has well deserved. No other citizen of such talenthas Rome brought forth, nor one to whom the law would be indebted more, ifhe the path of right had followed out. As it was, the corruption of theage ruined the city when desire for office, pomp, and the power whichwealth gives, ever to be dreaded, had swept away his wavering mind withsidelong flood, and the change of Curio, snared by the spoils of Gaul andthe gold of Cæsar, was that which turned the tide of history. Althoughmighty Sulla, fierce Marius, the blood-bespattered Cinna, and all the lineof Cæsar's house have held our throats at their mercy with the sword, towhom was e'er such power vouchsafed? All others bought, _he_ sold thestate. "

Gaius Matius, a Friend of Cæsar

"_Non enim Cæsarem . . . Sum secutus, sed amicum_. "

Gaius Matius, the subject of this sketch, was neither a great warrior, norstatesman, nor writer. If his claim to remembrance rested on what he didin the one or the other of these rôles, he would long ago have beenforgotten. It is his genius for friendship which has kept his memorygreen, and that is what he himself would have wished. Of his early life weknow little, but it does not matter much, because the interest which hehas for us centres about his relations to Cæsar in early manhood. Being ofgood birth, and a man of studious tastes, he probably attended theUniversity at Athens, and heard lectures there as young Cicero and Messaladid at a later period. He must have been a man of fine tastes andcultivation, for Cicero, in writing to a friend, bestows on Matius thetitle "doctissimus, " the highest literary compliment which one Roman couldpay another, and Apollodorus of Pergamum dedicated to him his treatise onrhetoric. Since he was born about 84 B. C. , he returned from his years ofstudy at Athens about the time when Cæsar was setting out on his brilliantcampaign in Gaul. Matius joined him, attracted perhaps by the personalcharms of the young proconsul, perhaps by the love of adventure, perhaps, like his friend Trebatius, by the hope of making a reputation. 

At all events he was already with Cæsar somewhere in Gaul in 53 B. C. , andit is hard to think of an experience better suited to lay bare the goodand the bad qualities in Cæsar's character than the years of camp lifewhich Matius spent with him in the wilds of Gaul and Britain. Asaide-de-camp, or orderly, for such a position he probably held, his placewas by Cæsar's side. They forded the rivers together, walked or rodethrough woodland or open side by side, shared the same meagre rations, andlay in the same tent at the end of the day's march, ready to spring fromthe ground at a moment's warning to defend each other against attack fromthe savage foe. Cæsar's narrative of his campaigns in Gaul is a soldier'sstory of military movements, and perhaps from our school-boy remembranceof it we may have as little a liking for it as Horace had for the poem ofLivius Andronicus, which he studied under "Orbilius of the rods, " but eventhe obscurities of the Latin subjunctive and ablative cannot have blindedus entirely to the romance of the desperate siege of Alesia and the finalstruggle which the Gauls made to drive back the invader. Matius sharedwith Cæsar all the hardships and perils of that campaign, and with Cæsarhe witnessed the final scene of the tragedy when Vercingetorix, the heroicGallic chieftain, gave up his sword, and the conquest of Gaul wasfinished. It is little wonder that Matius and the other young men whofollowed Cæsar were filled with admiration of the man who had brought allthis to pass. 

It was a notable group, including Trebatius, Hirtius, Pansa, Oppius, andMatius in its number. All of them were of the new Rome. Perhaps they weredimly conscious that the mantle of Tiberius Gracchus had fallen upon theirleader, that the great political struggle which had been going on fornearly a century was nearing its end, and that they were on the eve of agreater victory than that at Alesia. It would seem that only two of them, Matius and Trebatius, lived to see the dawning of the new day. But it wasnot simply nor mainly the brilliancy of Cæsar as a leader in war or inpolitics which attracted Matius to him. As he himself puts it in hisletter to Cicero: "I did not follow a Cæsar, but a friend. " Lucullus andPompey had made as distinguished a record in the East as Cæsar had in theWest, but we hear of no such group of able young men following theirfortunes as attached themselves to Cæsar. We must find a reason for thedifference in the personal qualities of Cæsar, and there is nothing thatmore clearly proves the charm of his character than the devotion to him ofthis group of men. In the group Matius is the best representative of theman and the friend. When Cæsar came into his own, Matius neither asked fornor accepted the political offices which Cæsar would gladly have givenhim. One needs only to recall the names of Antony, Labienus, or DecimusBrutus to realize the fact that Cæsar remembered and rewarded the faithfulservices of his followers. But Matius was Cæsar's friend and nothing more, not his master of the horse, as Antony was, nor his political andfinancial heir, as Octavius was. In his loyalty to Cæsar he sought for noother reward than Cæsar's friendship, and his services to him brought withthem their own return. Indeed, through his friend he suffered loss, forone of Cæsar's laws robbed him of a part of his estate, as he tells us, but this experience did not lessen his affection. How different hisattitude was from that of others who professed a friendship for Cæsar!Some of them turned upon their leader and plotted against his life, whendisappointed in the favors which they had received at his hands, andothers, when he was murdered, used his name and his friendship for them toadvance their own ambitious designs. Antony and Octavius struggle witheach other to catch the reins of power which have fallen from his hands;Dolabella, who seems to regard himself as an understudy of Cæsar, plays aserio-comic part in Rome in his efforts to fill the place of the deaddictator; while Decimus Brutus hurries to the North to make sure of theprovince which Cæsar had given him. 

From these men, animated by selfishness, by jealousy, by greed for gain, by sentimentalism, or by hypocritical patriotism, Matius stands aloof, and stands perhaps alone. For him the death of Cæsar means the loss of afriend, of a man in whom he believed. He can find no common point ofsympathy either with those who rejoice in the death of the tyrant, asCicero does, for he had not thought Cæsar a tyrant, nor with those who usethe name of Cæsar to conjure with. We have said that he accepted nopolitical office. He did accept an office, that of procurator, orsuperintendent, of the public games which Cæsar had vowed on the field ofPharsalus, but which death had stepped in to prevent him from giving, andit was in the pious fulfilment of this duty which he took upon himselfthat he brought upon his head the anger of the "auctores libertatis, " ashe ironically calls them. He had grieved, too, at the death of Cæsar, although "a man ought to rate the fatherland above a friend, " as theliberators said. Matius took little heed of this talk. He had known of itfrom the outset, but it had not troubled him. Yet when it came to his earsthat his friend Cicero, to whom he had been attached from boyhood, to whomhe had proved his fidelity at critical moments, was among his accusers, hecould not but complain bitterly of the injustice. Through a commonfriend, Trebatius, whose acquaintance he had made in Gaul, he expresses toCicero the sorrow which he feels at his unkindness. What Cicero has to sayin explanation of his position and in defence of himself, we can do nobetter than to give in his own words:

 "_Cicero to Matins, greeting:_[145]

 "I am not yet quite clear in my own mind whether our friend Trebatius, who is as loyal as he is devoted to both of us, has brought me more sorrow or pleasure: for I reached my Tusculan villa in the evening, and the next day, early in the morning, he came to see me, though he had not yet recovered his strength. When I reproved him for giving too little heed to his health, he said that nothing was nearer his heart than seeing me. 'There's nothing new, ' say I? He told me of your grievance against me, yet before I make any reply in regard to it, let me state a few facts. 

 "As far back as I can recall the past I have no friend of longer standing than you are; but long duration is a thing characteristic of many friendships, while love is not. I loved you on the day I met you, and I believed myself loved by you. Your subsequent departure, and that too for a long time, my electoral canvass, and our different modes of life did not allow our inclination toward one another to be strengthened by intimacy; still I saw your feeling toward me many years before the Civil War, while Cæsar was in Gaul; for the result which you thought would be of great advantage to me and not of disadvantage to Cæsar himself you accomplished: I mean in bringing him to love me, to honor me, to regard me as one of his friends. Of the many confidential communications which passed between us in those days, by word of mouth, by letter, by message, I say nothing, for sterner times followed. At the breaking out of the Civil War, when you were on your way toward Brundisium to join Cæsar, you came to me to my Formian villa. In the first place, how much did that very fact mean, especially at those times! Furthermore, do you think I have forgotten your counsel, your words, the kindness you showed? I remember that Trebatius was there. Nor indeed have I forgotten the letter which you sent to me after meeting Cæsar, in the district near Trebula, as I remember it. Next came that ill-fated moment when either my regard for public opinion, or my sense of duty, or chance, call it what you will, compelled me to go to Pompey. What act of kindness or thoughtfulness either toward me in my absence or toward my dear ones in Rome did you neglect? In fact, whom have all my friends thought more devoted to me and to themselves than you are? I came to Brundisium. Do you think I have forgotten in what haste, as soon as you heard of it, you came hurrying to me from Tarentum? How much your presence meant to me, your words of cheer to a courage broken by the fear of universal disaster! Finally, our life at Rome began. What element did our friendship lack? In most important matters I followed your advice with reference to my relations toward Cæsar; in other matters I followed my own sense of duty. With whom but myself, if Cæsar be excepted, have you gone so far as to visit his house again and again, and to spend there many hours, oftentimes in the most delightful discourse? It was then too, if you remember, that you persuaded me to write those philosophical essays of mine. After his return, what purpose was more in your thoughts than to have me as good a friend of Cæsar as possible? This you accomplished at once. 

 "What is the point, then, of this discourse, which is longer than I had intended it should be? This is the point, that I have been surprised that you, who ought to see these things, have believed that I have taken any step which is out of harmony with our friendly relations, for beside these facts which I have mentioned, which are undisputed and self-evident facts, there are many more intimate ties of friendship which I can scarcely put in words. Everything about you charms me, but most of all, on the one hand, your perfect loyalty in matters of friendship, your wisdom, dignity, steadfastness; on the other hand, your wit, refinement, and literary tastes. 

 "Wherefore--now I come back to the grievance--in the first place, I did not think that you had voted for that law; in the second place, if I had thought so, I should never have thought that you had done it without some sufficient reason. Your position makes whatever you do noticeable; furthermore, envy puts some of your acts in a worse light than the facts warrant. If you do not hear these rumors I do not know what to say. So far as I am concerned, if I ever hear them I defend you as I know that _I_ am always defended by _you_ against _my_ detractors. And my defence follows two lines: there are some things which I always deny _in toto_, as, for instance, the statement in regard to that very vote; there are other acts of yours which I maintain were dictated by considerations of affection and kindness, as, for instance, your action with reference to the management of the games. But it does not escape you, with all your wisdom, that, if Cæsar was a king--which seems to me at any rate to have been the case--with respect of your duty two positions may be maintained, either the one which I am in the habit of taking, that your loyalty and friendship to Cæsar are to be praised, or the one which some people take, that the freedom of one's fatherland is to be esteemed more than the life of one's friend. I wish that my discussions springing out of these conversations had been repeated to you. 

 "Indeed, who mentions either more gladly or more frequently than I the two following facts, which are especially to your honor? The fact that you were the most influential opponent of the Civil War, and that you were the most earnest advocate of temperance in the moment of victory, and in this matter I have found no one to disagree with me. Wherefore I am grateful to our friend Trebatius for giving me an opportunity to write this letter, and if you are not convinced by it, you will think me destitute of all sense of duty and kindness; and nothing more serious to me than that or more foreign to your own nature can happen. "

In all the correspondence of Cicero there is not a letter written withmore force and delicacy of feeling, none better suited to accomplish itspurpose than this letter to Matius. It is a work of art; but in that factlies its defect, and in that respect it is in contrast to the answer whichit called forth from Matius, The reply of Matius stands on a level withanother better-known non-Ciceronian epistle, the famous letter ofcondolence which Servius wrote to Cicero after the death of Cicero'sdaughter, Tullia; but it is finer, for, while Servius is stilted and fullof philosophical platitudes, Matius, like Shakespeare's Antony, "onlyspeaks right on, " in telling Cicero of his grief at Cæsar's death, of hisindignation at the intolerant attitude of the assassins, and hisdetermination to treasure the memory of Cæsar at any cost. This is hisletter:

 "_Matius to Cicero, greeting_[146]

 "I derived great pleasure from your letter, because I saw that you held such an opinion about me as I had hoped you would hold, and wished you to hold; and although, in regard to that opinion, I had no misgivings, still, inasmuch as I considered it a matter of the greatest importance, I was anxious that it should continue unchanged. And then I was conscious of having done nothing to offend any good citizen; therefore I was the less inclined to believe that you, endowed as you are with so many excellent qualities, could be influenced by any idle rumors, especially as my friendship toward you had been and was sincere and unbroken. Since I know that matters stand in this respect as I have wished them to stand, I will reply to the charges, which you have often refuted in my behalf in such a way as one would expect from that kindness of heart characteristic of you and from our friendship. It is true that what men said against me after the death of Cæsar was known to me. They call it a sin of mine that I sorrow over the death of a man dear to me, and because I grieve that he whom I loved is no more, for they say that 'fatherland should be above friendship, ' just as if they had proved already that his death has been of service to the state. But I will make no subtle plea. I confess that I have not attained to your high philosophic planes; for, on the one hand, in the Civil War I did not follow a Cæsar, but a friend, and although I was grieved at the state of things, still I did not desert him; nor, on the other hand, did I at any time approve of the Civil War, nor even of the reason for strife, which I most earnestly sought to extinguish when it was kindling. Therefore, in the moment of victory for one bound to me by the closest ties, I was not captivated by the charm either of public office or of gold, while his other friends, although they had less influence with him than I, misused these rewards in no small degree. Nay, even my own property was impaired by a law of Cæsar's, thanks to which very law many who rejoice at the death of Cæsar have remained at Rome. I have worked as for my own welfare that conquered citizens might be spared. 

 "Then may not I, who have desired the welfare of all, be indignant that he, from whom this favor came, is dead? especially since the very men who were forgiven have brought him both unpopularity and death. You shall be punished, then, they say, 'since you dare to disapprove of our deed. ' Unheard of arrogance, that some men glory in their crime, that others may not even sorrow over it without punishment! But it has always been the unquestioned right, even of slaves, to fear, to rejoice, to grieve according to the dictates of their own feelings rather than at the bidding of another man; of these rights, as things stand now, to judge from what these champions of freedom keep saying, they are trying to deprive us by intimidation; but their efforts are useless. I shall never be driven by the terrors of any danger from the path of duty or from the claims of friendship, for I have never thought that a man should shrink from an honorable death; nay, I have often thought that he should seek it. But why are they angry at me, if I wish them to repent of their deed? for I desire to have Cæsar's death a bitter thing to all men. 

 "'But I ought as a citizen to desire the welfare of the state. ' Unless my life in the past and my hope for the future, without words from me, prove that I desire that very end, I do not seek to establish the fact by words. Wherefore I beg you the more earnestly to consider deeds more than words, and to believe, if you feel that it is well for the right to prevail, that I can have no intercourse with dishonorable men. For am I now, in my declining years, to change that course of action which I maintained in my youth, when I might even have gone astray with hope of indulgence, and am I to undo my life's work? I will not do so. Yet I shall take no step which may be displeasing to any man, except to grieve at the cruel fate of one most closely bound to me, of one who was a most illustrious man. But if I were otherwise minded, I would never deny what I was doing lest I should be regarded as shameless in doing wrong, a coward and a hypocrite in concealing it. 

 "'Yet the games which the young Cæsar gave in memory of Cæsar's victory I superintended. ' But that has to do with my private obligation and not with the condition of the state; a duty, however, which I owed to the memory and the distinguished position of a dear friend even though he was dead, a duty which I could not decline when asked by a young man of most excellent promise and most worthy of Cæsar. 'I even went frequently to the house of the consul Antony to pay my respects!' to whom you will find that those who think that I am lacking in devotion to my country kept coming in throngs to ask some favor forsooth or secure some reward. But what arrogance this is that, while Cæsar never interfered with my cultivating the friendship of men whom I pleased, even when he himself did not like them, these men who have taken my friend from me should try to prevent me by their slander from loving those whom I will. 

 "But I am not afraid lest the moderation of my life may prove too weak to withstand false reports, or that even those who do not love me because of my loyalty to Cæsar may not prefer to have friends like me rather than like themselves. So far as I myself am concerned, if what I prefer shall be my lot, the life which is left me I shall spend in retirement at Rhodes; but if some untoward circumstance shall prevent it, I shall live at Rome in such a wise as to desire always that right be done. Our friend Trebatius I thank heartily in that he has disclosed your sincere and friendly feeling toward me, and has shown me that him whom I have always loved of my own free will I ought with the more reason to esteem and honor. Bene vale et me dilige. "

With these words our knowledge of Matius comes almost to an end. His lifewas prolonged into the imperial period, and, strangely enough, in one ofthe few references to him which we find at a later date, he ischaracterized as "the friend of Augustus" (divi Augusti amicus). It wouldseem that the affection which he felt for Cæsar he transferred to Cæsar'sheir and successor. He still holds no office or title. In this connectionit is interesting to recall the fact that we owe the best of Cicero'sphilosophical work to him, the "Academics, " the "De Finibus, " and the"Tusculan Questions, " for Cicero tells us in his letter that he wasinduced to write his treatises on philosophy by Matius. It is a pleasantthing to think that to him we may also be indebted for Cicero's charmingessay "On Friendship. " The later life of Matius, then, we may think wasspent in retirement, in the study of philosophy, and in the pursuit ofliterature. His literary pursuits give a homely and not unpleasant touchto his character. They were concerned with gastronomy, for Columella, inthe first century of our era, tells us[147] that Matius composed threebooks, bearing the titles of "The Cook, " "The Butler, " and "ThePicklemaker, " and his name was transmitted to a later generation in a dishknown as "mincemeat à la Matius" (_minutal Matianum_). [148] He passes outof the pages of history in the writings of Pliny the Elder as the man who"invented the practice of clipping shrubbery. "[149] To him, then, weperhaps owe the geometrical figures, and the forms of birds and beastswhich shrubs take in the modern English garden. His memory is thus everkept green, whether in a way that redounds to his credit or not is leftfor the reader to decide. 

Index

Acta Diurna. Anoyran monument. Anglo-Saxons, compared with Romans, in government; in private affairs. Arval Hymn, the. Ascoli's theory of the differentiation of the Romance languages. Augustus, "Res Gestæ"; his benefactions. 

Batha, a municipal expense. Benefactions, private, co-operation with the government; _objects_; comparison of ancient and modern objects; of Æmilius; of Pompey; of Augustus; motives; expected of prominent men; attempts at regulation; a recognized responsibility; a legal obligation on municipal officials; offices thereby limited to the rich; of rich private citizens; effect on municipal life and character; on private citizens; charity. Burial societies. 

Cælius, estimate of Curio. Cæsar, expenditures as sedile; and Curio; secures Curio as agent in Rome; unprepared for civil war; _et passim_ in chapters on Curio and Matius. Cato the elder, his diction. Charity. Church, the Christian, influence on the spread of Latin. Cicero, quotation from a letter in colloquial style; his "corrupt practices act, "; and Scaptius; and Curio; _correspondence_ with Matius. Civic pride of Romans. Civil war, outbreak of. Combinations in restraint of trade; government intervention. Common people, their language logical; progressive and conservative elements. Common people of Rome, their language (see _Latin, colloquial_); their religious beliefs; philosophy of life; belief in future life. Controversiae of the schools of rhetoric. Corporations; aid the government; collect taxes; in politics; many small stockholders. Cromer, Lord, "Ancient and Modern Imperialism, ". Curio, funeral games in his father's honor;character; family; relations with Cicero; beginning of public life; relations with Cæsar; openly espouses Cæsar's cause; popularity; as quæstor; in the Clodian affair; Cælius's opinion of him; as tribune; relations with Pompey; forces conservatives to open hostilities; his part in the civil war; death. 

Dacia, Latin in. Dialects in Italy, their disappearance. Diez, the Romance philologist. Diocletian's policy; his edict to regulate prices; content; discovery of document; amount extant; date; style; provisions of the edict; extracts; discussion; made prices uniform; its prices are retail; interesting deductions; effect; repeal. 

English language in India. Epitaphs, deal with the common people; length of Roman epitaphs; along Appian Way; sentiments expressed; show religious beliefs; gods rarely named; Mother Earth. Epitaphs, metrical, praises of women predominate; literary merit; art. Étienne, Henri, first scholar to notice colloquial Latin. 

Food, cost of, comparison with to-day; free distribution of. 

Gracchi, the. Greek language, in Italy; not conquered by Latin; influence on Latin. Gröber's theory of the differentiation of the Romance languages; criticism of. Guilds; were non-political; inscriptional evidence; comparison of conditions in East and West; objects; dinners; temples; rules; no attempts to raise wages; religious character; began to enter politics; attitude of government toward; decline. 

Hempl's theory of language rivalry. Horace, his "curiosa felicitas, ". 

Inscription from Pompeii, in colloquial Latin. 

Julia, death of. Julian's edict to regulate the price of grain. 

Labor-unions. (See _Guilds_. )Lactantius, "On the Deaths of Those Who Persecuted (the Christians), ". Languages spoken in Italy in the early period; influence of other languages on Latin, 22. (See also _Greek_. )Latin language, extent; unifying influences; uniformity; evidence of inscriptions; causes of its spread; colonies; roads; merchants; soldiers; government officials; the church; its superiority not a factor; sentiment a cause; "peaceful invasion, ". Latin, colloquial, its study neglected till recently; first noticed in modern times by Henri Étienne; its forms, how determined; ancient authority for its existence; evidence of the Romance languages; aid derived from a knowledge of spoken English; analytical formation of tenses; slang; extant specimens; causes of variation; external influences on; influence of culture; definition of colloquial Latin; relation to literary Latin; careless pronunciation; accent different from literary Latin; confusion of genders; monotonous style; tendencies in vocabulary, 64-7: in syntax; effect of loss of final letters; reunion with literary Latin; still exists in the Romance languages; date when it became the separate Romance language; specimens quoted. Latin, literary, modelled on Greek; relation to colloquial Latin; standardized by grammarians; style unnatural; reunion with colloquial Latin; disappearance. Latin, preliterary. Laws of the Twelve Tables; excerpt from. Living, cost of, comparison with to-day. Livius Andronicus. Lucan's account of the death of Curio. 

Matius, Gaius, early life and character; with Cæsar in Gaul; friendship with Cæsar, _passim_; accepted no office; devotion to Cæsar; unpopularity due to it; correspondence with Cicero; defence of his devotion to Cæsar; prompted Cicero's best philosophical works; later life; literary works. Menippean satire. Milesian tales. Money, unit of. 

Nævius. Ninus romance; and Petronius. 

Organization, of capitalists (see _Corporations_); of labor (see _Guilds_). Oscan. 

Paternalism, beginnings of, in Rome; effect on people. Patron, office of; benefactions of. Pervigilium Veneris. Petronius, Satiræ; excerpt from; original size; motif; Trimalchio's Dinner; satirical spirit; literary criticism; Horatian humor; cynical attitude; realism; prose-poetic form; origin of this genre of literature; the Satiræ and the epic; and the heroic romance; and the Menippean satire; and the Milesian tale; and the prologue of comedy; and the mime; the Satiræ perhaps a mixture of many types; originated with Petronius. Plautus. Poetry of the common people, dedicatory; ephemeral; graffiti; borrowed from the Augustan poets; folk poetry; children's jingles. Pompey, his benefactions; ordered to march against Cæsar; _et passim_ in chapter on Curio. Prices, controlled by corporations; attempts at government regulation. Probus, the "Appendix" of. Prose-poetic form. 

Ritschl, the Plautine scholar. Romance, the realistic, origin obscure. (See _Petronius, Satiræ_. )Romance languages, causes of their differentiation, Gröber's theory; Ascoli's theory; date of their beginning; descended from colloquial Latin; reasons of their agreement; common source. Romances, the Greek, theory of origin. 

Salaries of municipal officers. (See also _Wages_. )Scaptius and Cicero. Seneca the elder, "Controversiæ, ". Strasburg oath. Strikes. 

Theatres a municipal expense. Trimalchio's Dinner. 

Umbrian. Urso, constitution of. 

Wages in Roman times; compared with to-day; and guilds; and slavery. (See also _Salaries_. )

Footnotes

[1] _Cf. _ A. Ernout, _Le Parler de Préneste_, Paris, 1905. 

[2] The relation between Latin and the Italic dialects may be illustratedby an extract or two from them with a Latin translation. An Umbrianspecimen may be taken from one of the bronze tablets found at Iguvium, which reads in Umbrian: Di Grabouie, saluo seritu ocrem Fisim, saluamseritu totam Iiouinam (_Iguvinian Tables_ VI, a. 51), and in Latin: DeusGrabovi, salvam servato arcem Fisiam, salvam servato civitatem Iguvinam. Abit of Oscan from the Tabula Bantina (Tab. Bant. 2, 11) reads: suaepiscontrud exeic fefacust auti comono hipust, molto etanto estud, and inLatin: siquis contra hoc fecerit aut comitia habuerit, multa tanta esto. 

[3] _Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum_, IX, 782, furnishes a case in point. 

[4] _Cf. _ G. Mohl, _Introduction à la chronologie du Latin vulgaire_, Paris, 1899. 

[5] Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encyclopadie_, IV, 1179 _ff. _

[6] Marquardt, _Römische Staatsverwaltung_, II, p. 463. 

[7] _Cf. _, _e. G. _, Pirson, _La langue des inscriptions Latines de laGaule_, Bruxelles, 1901; Carnoy, _Le Latin d'Espagne d'après lesinscriptions_, Bruxelles, 1906; Hoffmann, _De titulis Africæ Latinisquæstiones phoneticæ_, 1907; Kuebler, _Die lateinische Sprache aufafrikanischen Inschriften_ (_Arch, für lat. Lex. _, vol. VIII), and Martin, _Notes on the Syntax of the Latin Inscriptions Found in Spain_, Baltimore, 1909. 

[8] _Cf. _ L. Hahn, _Rom und Romanismus im griechisch-römischen Osten_(esp. Pp. 222-268), Leipzig, 1906. 

[9] _Proceedings of the American Philological Association_, XXIX (1898), pp. 31-47. For a different theory of the results of language-conflict, _cf. _ Gröber, _Grundriss der romanischen Philologie_, I, pp. 516, 517. 

[10] A very interesting sketch of the history of the Latin language inthis region may be seen in Ovide Densusianu's _Histoire de la langueRoumaine_, Paris, 1902. 

[11] Gorra, _Lingue Neolatine_, pp. 66-68. 

[12] Gröber, _Grundriss der romanischen Philologie_, pp. 517 and 524. 

[13] _Cf. _ Gröber in _Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik_, I, p. 210 _ff. _

[14] _Is Modern-Language Teaching a Failure?_ Chicago, 1907. 

[15] _Cf. _ Abbott, _History of Rome_, pp. 246-249. 

[16] Schuchardt, _Vokalismus des Vulgärlateins, I_, 103 _ff. _

[17] _Cf. _ Gröber, _Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik_, I, 45. 

[18] Thielmann, _Archiv_, II, 48 _ff. _; 157 _ff. _

[19] From the "Laws of the Twelve Tables" of the fifth century B. C. SeeBruns, _Fontes iuris Romani antiqui_, sixth edition, p. 31. 

[20] _Appendix Probi_, in Keil's _Grammatici Latini_, IV, 197 _ff. _

[21] "The Accent in Vulgar and Formal Latin, " in _Classical Philology_, II(1907), 445 _ff. _

[22] Bücheler, _Carmina Latina epigraphica_, No. 53. The originals of allthe bits of verse which are translated in this paper may be found in thecollection whose title is given here. Hereafter reference to this workwill be by number only. 

[23] No. 443. 

[24] No. 92. 

[25] No. 128. 

[26] No. 127. 

[27] No. 876. 

[28] No. 1414. 

[29] No. 765. 

[30] No. 843. 

[31] No. 95. 

[32] No. 1578. 

[33] Nos. 1192 and 1472. 

[34] No. 1037. 

[35] No. 1039. 

[36] G. W. Van Bleek, Quae de hominum post mortem eondicione doceantcarmina sepulcralia Latina. 

[37] No. 1495. 

[38] No. 1496. 

[39] No. 86. 

[40] No. 1465. 

[41] No. 1143. 

[42] No. 1559. 

[43] No. 1433. 

[44] No. 225. 

[45] No. 143. 

[46] No. 83. 

[47] No. 1500. 

[48] No. 190. 

[49] No. 244. 

[50] No. 1499. 

[51] No. 856. 

[52] Society and Politics in Ancient Rome, p. 183. 

[53] No. 562. 

[54] No. 52. 

[55] No. 1251. 

[56] No. 106. 

[57] No. 967. 

[58] No. 152. 

[59] No. 1042. 

[60] No. 1064. 

[61] No. 98. 

[62] Bücheler, _Carmina Latino epigraphica_, No. 899. 

[63] No. 19. 

[64] No. 866. 

[65] No. 863. 

[66] No. 937. 

[67] No. 949. 

[68] No. 943. 

[69] No. 945. 

[70] No. 354. 

[71] _Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum_, IV, 6892. 

[72] Bücheler, No. 928. 

[73] No. 333. 

[74] No. 931. 

[75] No. 933. 

[76] No. 38. 

[77] No. 270. 

[78] Habeat scabiem quisquis ad me venerit novissimus. 

[79] Rex erit qui recte faciet, qui non faciet non erit. 

[80]

 Gallos Cæsar in triumphum ducit, idem in curiam; Galli bracas deposuerunt, latum clavom sumpserunt. 

[81]

 Brutus quia reges eiecit, consul primus factus est; Hic quia consoles eiecit, rex postremo factus est. 

[82] Salva Roma, salva patria, salvus est Germanicus. 

[83] _Cf. _ Schmid, "Der griechische Roman, " _Neue Jahrb. _, Bd XIII (1904), 465-85; Wilcken, in _Hermes_, XXVIII, 161 _ff. _, and in _Archiv f. Papyrusforschung_, I, 255 _ff. _; Grenfell-Hunt, _Fayûm Towns and TheirPapyri_ (1900), 75 _ff. _, and _Rivista di Filologia_, XXIII, I _ff. _

[84] Some of the important late discussions of the Milesian tale are byBürger, _Hermes_ (1892), 351 _ff. _; Norden, _Die antike Kunstprosa_, II, 602, 604, n. ; Rohde, _Kleine Schriften_, II, 25 _ff. _; Bürger, _Studienzur Geschichte d. Griech. Romans_, I (_Programm von Blankenburg a. H. _, 1902); W. Schmid, _Neue Jahrb. F. D. Klass. Alt. _ (1904), 474 _ff. _;Lucas, "Zu den Milesiaca des Aristides, " _Philologus_, 61 (1907), 16 _ff. _

[85] On the origin of the _prosimetrum cf. _ Hirzel, _Der Dialog_, 381_ff. _; Norden, _Die antike Kunstprosa_, 755. 

[86] _Cf. _ Rosenbluth, _Beiträge zur Quellenkunde von Petrons Satiren_. Berlin, 1909. 

[87] This theory in the main is suggested by Rohde, _Der griechischeRoman_, 2d ed. , 267 (Leipzig, 1900), and by Ribbeck, _Geschichte d. Röm. Dichtung_, 2d ed. , III, 150. 

[88] _Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum_, vol. III, pp. 1926-1953. Mommsen'stext with a commentary has been published by H. Blümner, in _DerMaximaltarif des Diocletian_, Berlin, 1893. A brief description of theedict may be found in the Pauly-Wissowa _Real-Encyclopadie der classischenAltertumswissenschaft_, under "Edictum Diocletiani, " and K. Bücher hasdiscussed some points in it in the _Zeitschrift für die gesamteStaatswissenschaft_, vol. L (1894), pp. 189-219 and 672-717. 

[89] The method of arrangement may be illustrated by an extract from thefirst table, which deals with grain and vegetables. 

[90] The present-day prices which are given in the third column of thesetwo tables are taken from Bulletin No. 77 of the Bureau of Labor, and fromthe majority and minority reports of the Select Committee of the U. S. Senate on "Wages and Prices of Commodities" (Report, No. 912, Documents, Nos. 421 and 477). In setting down a number to represent the current priceof an article naturally a rough average had to be struck of the ratescharged in different parts of the country. Bulletin No. 77, for instance, gives the retail price charged for butter at 226 places in 68 differentcities, situated in 39 different States. At one point in Illinois theprice quoted in 1906 was 22 cents, while at a point in Pennsylvania 36cents was reported, but the prevailing price throughout the country rangedfrom 26 to 32, so that these figures were set down in the table. A similarmethod has been adopted for the other items. A special difficulty arisesin the case of beef, where the price varies according to the cut. Theprice of wheat is not given in the extant fragment of the edict, but hasbeen calculated by Blümner from statements in ancient writers. So far asthe wages of the ancient and modern workman are concerned we must rememberthat the Roman laborer in many cases received "keep" from his employer. Probably from one-third to three-sevenths should be added to his dailywage to cover this item. Statistics published by the Department ofAgriculture show that the average wage of American farm laborers per monthduring 1910 was $27. 50 without board and $19. 21 with board. The item ofboard, therefore, is three-sevenths of the money paid to the laborer whenhe keeps himself. One other point of difference between ancient and modernworking conditions must be borne in mind in attempting a comparison. Wehave no means of knowing the length of the Roman working day. However, itwas probably much longer than our modern working day, which, forconvenience' sake, is estimated at eight hours. 

[91] Wholesale price in 1909. 

[92] Receives "keep" also. 

[93] Eight-hour day assumed. 

[94] _Cf. _ Report of the Commissioner of Labor, pp. 622-625. In Englandbetween one-third and one-fourth; _cf. _ Bulletin, No. 77, p. 345. 

[95] _Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum_, II, 5489. 

[96] Wilmanns, _Exempla Inscriptionum Latinarum_, 1772. 

[97] _Ibid. _, 2037. 

[98] _Ibid. _, 1859. 

[99] _Ibid. _, 2054. 

[100] _Ibid. _, 2099. 

[101] 23:48_f. _

[102] _Cic. , ad Att. _, 5. 21. 10-13; 6. 1. 5-7; 6. 2. 7; 6. 3. 5. 

[103] 6. 17. 

[104] _Captivi_, 489 _ff. _

[105] _Livy_, 38. 35. 

[106] Plautus, _Pseudolus_, 189. 

[107] Some of the most important discussions of workmen's guilds among theRomans are to be found in Waltzing's _Etude historique sur lescorporations professionnelles chez les Romains_, 3 vols. , Louvain, 1895-9;Liebenam's _Zur Geschichte und Organisation des römischen Vereinswesen_, Leipzig, 1890; Ziebarth's _Das Griechische Vereinswesen_, Leipzig, 1896, pp. 96-110; Kornemann's article, "Collegium, " in the Pauly-Wissowa _RealEncyclopadie_. Other literature is cited by Waltzing, I, pp. 17-30, and byKornemann, IV, columns 479-480. 

[108] _Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum_, XI, 5047. 

[109] _Ibid. _, V, 7906. 

[110] _Ibid. _, III, p. 953. 

[111] _Ibid. _, VIII, 14683. 

[112] _Ibid. _, III, 3583. 

[113] _Ibid. _, XIV, 2112. 

[114] _Ibid. _, XIV, 326. 

[115] _E. G. _, Clodius and Milo. 

[116] Lucan, 4. 814 _ff. _; Velleius, 2. 48; Pliny, Nat. Hist. , 7. 116_ff. _

[117] Cicero, Brutus, 122, 210, 214. 

[118] _Ibid. _, 280. 

[119] Cicero, _Epist. Ad Fam. _, 2. 1. 

[120] Cicero, _Phil. _, 2. 45 _f. _

[121] Cicero, _ad Att. _, 1. 14. 5. 

[122] _Ibid. _, 1. 14. 5. 

[123] _Ibid. _, 2. 12. 2. 

[124] _Ibid. _, 2. 7. 3; 2. 8. 1; 2. 12. 2. 

[125] Suet. , _Julius_, 52. 

[126]_Ad Att. _, 2. 19. 3. 

[127] _Ad fam. _, 2. 4. 

[128] _Ibid. _, 2. 6. 

[129]_Ibid. _, 8. 4. 2. 

[130] Dio's account (40. 61) of Curio's course seems to harmonize withthis interpretation. 

[131] "Cicero, _ad fam. _, 8. 10. 4. 

[132] White's Civil Wars of Appian, 2. 27. 

[133] Cicero, _ad fam. _, 8. 6. 5. 

[134] Valerius Maximus, 9. 1. 6. 

[135] Vell. Pat. , 2. 48. 

[136] Civil Wars, 2. 30. 

[137] _Ad Att. _, 6. 9. 4. 

[138] Civil Wars of Appian, 2. 31. 

[139] Velleius Paterculus, 2. 48. 

[140] Cæsar, Civil War, 1. 12. 

[141] _Ibid. _, 1. 182

[142] _Ibid. _, 2. 23. 

[143] _Ibid. _, 2. 42. 

[144] _Pharsalia_, 4. 807-824. 

[145] Cicero, _Epistulæ ad famiares_, 11. 27. 

[146] Cicero, _Epist. Ad fam. _, 11. 28. 

[147] 12. 46. 1. 

[148] Apicius, 4. 174. 

[149] _Naturalis Historia_, 12. 13.