History of Julius Caesar Vol. 1 of 2

History of Julius Caesar Vol. 1 of 2
Napoleon III

Emperor of the French Napoleon III

History of Julius Caesar Vol. 1 of 2

PREFACE

HISTORIC truth ought to be no less sacred than religion. If the precepts of faith raise our soul above the interests of this world, the lessons of history, in their turn, inspire us with the love of the beautiful and the just, and the hatred of whatever presents an obstacle to the progress of humanity. These lessons, to be profitable, require certain conditions. It is necessary that the facts be produced with a rigorous exactness, that the changes political or social be analysed philosophically, that the exciting interest of the details of the lives of public men should not divert attention from the political part they played, or cause us to forget their providential mission.

Too often the writer represents the different phases of history as spontaneous events, without seeking in preceding facts their true origin and their natural deduction; like the painter who, in re-producing the characteristics of Nature, only seizes their picturesque effect, without being able, in his picture, to give their scientific demonstration. The historian ought to be more than a painter; he ought, like the geologist, who explains the phenomena of the globe, to unfold the secret of the transformation of societies.

But, in writing history, by what means are we to arrive at truth? By following the rules of logic. Let us first take for granted that a great effect is always due to a great cause, never to a small one; in other words, an accident, insignificant in appearance, never leads to important results without a pre-existing cause, which has permitted this slight accident to produce a great effect. The spark only lights up a vast conflagration when it falls upon combustible matters previously collected. Montesquieu thus confirms this idea: “It is not fortune,” he says, “which rules the world… There are general causes, whether moral or physical, which act in every monarchy, raising, maintaining, or overthrowing it; all accidents are subject to these causes, and if the fortune of a battle – that is to say, a particular cause – has ruined a state, there was a general cause which made it necessary that that state should perish through a single battle: in a word, the principal cause drags with it all the particular accidents.”[1 - Montesquieu, Grandeur et Décadence des Romains, xviii.]

If during nearly a thousand years the Romans always came triumphant out of the severest trials and greatest perils, it is because there existed a general cause which made them always superior to their enemies, and which did not permit partial defeats and misfortunes to entail the fall of the empire. If the Romans, after giving an example to the world of a people constituting itself and growing great by liberty, seemed, after Cæsar, to throw themselves blindly into slavery, it is because there existed a general reason which by fatality prevented the Republic from returning to the purity of its ancient institutions; it is because the new wants and interests of a society in labour required other means to satisfy them. Just as logic demonstrates that the reason of important events is imperious, in like manner we must recognise in the long duration of an institution the proof of its goodness, and in the incontestable influence of a man upon his age the proof of his genius.

The task, then, consists in seeking the vital element which constituted the strength of the institution, as the predominant idea which caused man to act. In following this rule, we shall avoid the errors of those historians who gather facts transmitted by preceding ages, without properly arranging them according to their philosophical importance; thus glorifying that which merits blame, and leaving in the shade that which calls for the light. It is not a minute analysis of the Roman organisation which will enable us to understand the duration of so great an empire, but the profound examination of the spirit of its institutions; no more is it the detailed recital of the most trivial actions of a superior man which will reveal the secret of his ascendency, but the attentive investigation of the elevated motives of his conduct.

When extraordinary facts attest an eminent genius, what is more contrary to good sense than to ascribe to him all the passions and sentiments of mediocrity? What more erroneous than not to recognise the pre-eminence of those privileged beings who appear in history from time to time like luminous beacons, dissipating the darkness of their epoch, and throwing light into the future? To deny this pre-eminence would, indeed, be to insult humanity, by believing it capable of submitting, long and voluntarily, to a domination which did not rest on true greatness and incontestable utility. Let us be logical, and we shall be just.

Too many historians find it easier to lower men of genius, than, with a generous inspiration, to raise them to their due height, by penetrating their vast designs. Thus, as regards Cæsar, instead of showing us Rome, torn to pieces by civil wars and corrupted by riches, trampling under foot her ancient institutions, threatened by powerful peoples, such as Gauls, Germans, and Parthians, incapable of sustaining herself without a central power stronger, more stable, and more just; instead, I say, of tracing this faithful picture, Cæsar is represented, from an early age, as already aspiring to the supreme power. If he opposes Sylla, if he disagrees with Cicero, if he allies himself with Pompey, it is the result of that far-sighted astuteness which divined everything with a view to bring everything under subjection. If he throws himself into Gaul, it is to acquire riches by pillage[2 - Suetonius, Cæsar, 22.] or soldiers devoted to his projects; if he crosses the sea to carry the Roman eagles into an unknown country, but the conquest of which will strengthen that of Gaul,[3 - “Cæsar resolved to pass into Britain, the people of which had, in nearly all wars, assisted the Gauls.” (Cæsar, Gallic War, IV. 20.)] it is to seek there pearls which were believed to exist in the seas of Great Britain.[4 - Suetonius, Cæsar, 47.] If, after having vanquished the formidable enemies of Italy on the other side of the Alps, he meditates an expedition against the Parthians, to avenge the defeat of Crassus, it is, as certain historians say, because activity was a part of his nature, and that his health was better when he was campaigning.[5 - Appian, Civil Wars, I. 110, 326, edit. Schweighæuser.] If he accepts from the Senate with thankfulness a crown of laurel, and wears it with pride, it is to conceal his bald head. If, lastly, he is assassinated by those whom he had loaded with benefits, it is because he sought to make himself king; as though he were to his contemporaries, as well as for posterity, the greatest of all kings. Since Suetonius and Plutarch, such are the paltry interpretations which it has pleased people to give to the noblest actions. But by what sign are we to recognise a man’s greatness? By the empire of his ideas, when his principles and his system triumph in spite of his death or defeat. Is it not, in fact, the peculiarity of genius to survive destruction, and to extend its empire over future generations? Cæsar disappeared, and his influence predominates still more than during his life. Cicero, his adversary, is compelled to exclaim: “All the acts of Cæsar, his writings, his words, his promises, his thoughts, have more force since his death, than if he were still alive.”[6 - Cicero, Epistolæ ad Atticum, XIV. 10.] For ages it was enough to tell the world that such was the will of Cæsar, for the world to obey it.

The preceding remarks sufficiently explain the aim I have in view in writing this history. This aim is to prove that, when Providence raises up such men as Cæsar, Charlemagne, and Napoleon, it is to trace out to peoples the path they ought to follow; to stamp with the seal of their genius a new era; and to accomplish in a few years the labour of many centuries. Happy the peoples who comprehend and follow them! woe to those who misunderstand and combat them! They do as the Jews did, they crucify their Messiah; they are blind and culpable: blind, for they do not see the impotence of their efforts to suspend the definitive triumph of good; culpable, for they only retard progress, by impeding its prompt and fruitful application.

In fact, neither the murder of Cæsar, nor the captivity of St. Helena, have been able to destroy irrevocably two popular causes overthrown by a league which disguised itself under the mask of liberty. Brutus, by slaying Cæsar, plunged Rome into the horrors of civil war; he did not prevent the reign of Augustus, but he rendered possible those of Nero and Caligula. The ostracism of Napoleon by confederated Europe has been no more successful in preventing the Empire from being resuscitated; and, nevertheless, how far are we from the great questions solved, the passions calmed, and the legitimate satisfactions given to peoples by the first Empire!

Thus every day since 1815 has verified the prophecy of the captive of St. Helena:

“How many struggles, how much blood, how many years will it not require to realise the good which I intended to do for mankind!”[7 - In fact, how many disturbances, civil wars, and revolutions in Europe since 1815! in France, Spain, Italy, Poland, Belgium, Hungary, Greece, and Germany!]

Palace of the Tuileries, March 20th, 1862.

    Napoleon.

BOOK I.

ROMAN HISTORY BEFORE CÆSAR

CHAPTER I.

ROME UNDER THE KINGS

The Kings found the Roman Institutions.

I. “In the birth of societies,” says Montesquieu, “it is the chiefs of the republics who form the institution, and in the sequel it is the institution which forms the chiefs of the republics.” And he adds, “One of the causes of the prosperity of Rome was the fact that its kings were all great men. We find nowhere else in history an uninterrupted series of such statesmen and such military commanders.”[8 - Grandeur et Décadence des Romains.]

The story, more or less fabulous, of the foundation of Rome does not come within the limits of our design; and with no intention of clearing up whatever degree of fiction these earliest ages of history may contain, we purpose only to remind our readers that the kings laid the foundations of those institutions to which Rome owed her greatness, and so many extraordinary men who astonished the world by their virtues and exploits.

The kingly power lasted a hundred and forty-four years, and at its fall Rome had become the most powerful state in Latium. The town was of vast extent, for, even at that epoch, the seven hills were nearly all inclosed within a wall protected internally and externally by a consecrated space called the Pomœrium.[9 - Titus Livius I. 44. – Dionysius of Halicarnassus, speaking of the portion of the rampart between the Porta Æsquilina and the Porta Collina, says, “Rome is fortified by a fosse thirty feet deep and a hundred or more wide in the narrowest part. Above this fosse rises a wall supported internally by a lofty and wide terrace, so that it cannot be shaken by battering rams, or overthrown by undermining.” (Antiq. Roman., IX. 68.)]

This line of inclosure remained long the same, although the increase of the population had led to the establishment of immense suburbs, which finally inclosed the Pomœrium itself.[10 - “Since that time (the time of Servius Tullius) Rome has been no farther enlarged … and if, in face of this spectacle, any one would form a notion of the magnitude of Rome, he would certainly fall into error, for he would not be able to distinguish where the town ends and where it is limited, so close the suburbs come up to the town… The Aventine, till the reign of Claudius, remained outside the Pomœrium, notwithstanding its numerous inhabitants.” (Aulus Gellius, XIII. 14. – Dionysius of Halicarnassus, IV. 13.)]

The Roman territory properly so called was circumscribed, but that of the subjects and allies of Rome was already rather considerable. Some colonies had been founded. The kings, by a skilful policy, had succeeded in drawing into their dependence a great number of neighbouring states, and, when Tarquinius Superbus assembled the Hernici, the Latins, and the Volsci, for a ceremony destined to seal his alliance with them, forty-seven different petty states took part in the inauguration of the temple of Jupiter Latialis.[11 - Dionysius of Halicarnassus, IV. 49.]

The foundation of Ostia, by Ancus Martius, at the mouth of the Tiber, shows that already the political and commercial importance of facilitating communication with the sea was understood; while the treaty of commerce concluded with Carthage at the time of the fall of the kingly power, the details of which are preserved by Polybius, indicates more extensive foreign relations than we might have supposed.[12 - “By this treaty, the Romans and their allies engage not to navigate beyond the Bonum Promontorium (a cape situated to the north and opposite Carthage, and now called by navigators the Cape of Porto-Farino)… The Carthaginians undertake to respect the Ardeates, the Antiates, the Laurentes, the Circeii, the Tarracinians, and indeed all the Latin peoples subject to Rome.” (Polybius, III. 22.)]

Social Organisation.

II. The Roman social body, which originated probably in ancient transformations of society, consisted, from the earliest ages, of a certain number of aggregations, called gentes, formed of the families of the conquerors, and bearing some resemblance to the clans of Scotland or to the Arabian tribes. The heads of families (patresfamilias) and their members (patricii) were united among themselves, not only by kindred, but also by political and religious ties. Hence arose an hereditary nobility having for distinctive marks family names, special costume,[13 - “When Tarquinius Priscus regulated, with the foresight of a skilful prince, the state of the citizens, he attached great importance to the dress of children of condition; and he decreed that the sons of patricians should wear the bulla with the robe hemmed with purple: but even this privilege was restricted to the children of those fathers who had exercised a curule dignity; the sons of other patricians had merely the prætexta, and it was necessary that even their fathers should have served the prescribed time in the cavalry.” (Macrobius, Saturnalia, I. 6.)] and waxen images of their ancestors (jus imaginum).

The plebeians, perhaps a race who had been conquered at an earlier period, were, in regard to the dominant race, in a situation similar to that of the Anglo-Saxons in regard to the Normans in the eleventh century of our era, after the invasion of England. They were generally agriculturists, excluded originally from all military and civil office.[14 - “The plebeians were excluded from all offices, and put only to agriculture, the breeding of cattle, and mercantile occupations.” (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, II. 9.) – “Numa encouraged the agriculturists; they were excused from service in war, and discharged from the care of municipal affairs.” (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, II. 76.)]

The patrician families had gathered round them, under the name of clients, either foreigners, or a great portion of the plebeians. Dionysius of Halicarnassus even pretends that Romulus had required that each of these last should choose himself a patron.[15 - Dionysius of Halicarnassus, II. 9. – Plutarch, Romulus, 13.] The clients cultivated the fields and formed part of the family.[16 - “Agrorum partes attribuerant tenuioribus.” (Festus, under the word Patres, p. 246, edit. O. Müller.)] The relation of patronage had created such reciprocal obligations as amounted almost to the ties of kindred. For the patrons, they consisted in giving assistance to their clients in affairs public and private; and for the latter, in aiding constantly the patrons with their person and purse, and in preserving towards them an inviolable fidelity: they could not cite each other reciprocally in law, or bear witness one against the other, and it would have been a scandal to see them take different sides in a political question. It was a state of things which had some analogy to feudalism; the great protected the little, and the little paid for protection by rents and services; yet there was this essential difference, that the clients were not serfs, but free men.

Slavery had long formed one of the constituent parts of society. The slaves, taken among foreigners and captives,[17 - Dionysius of Halicarnassus, IV. 24.] and associated in all the domestic labours of the family, often received their liberty as a recompense for their conduct. They were then named freedmen, and were received among the clients of the patron, without sharing in all the rights of a citizen.[18 - These questions have been the object of learned researches; but, after an attentive perusal of the works of Beaufort, Niebuhr, Gœttling, Duruy, Marquardt, Mommsen, Lange, &c., the difference of opinions is discouraging: we have adopted those which appeared most probable.]

The gens thus consisted of the reunion of patrician families having a common ancestor; around it was grouped a great number of clients, freedmen, and slaves. To give an idea of the importance of the gentes in the first ages of Rome, it is only necessary to remind the reader that towards the year 251, a certain Attus Clausus, afterwards called Appius Claudius, a Sabine of the town of Regillum, distinguished, according to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, no less for the splendour of his birth than for his great wealth, took refuge among the Romans with his kinsmen, his friends, and his clients, with all their families, to the number of five thousand men capable of bearing arms.[19 - Dionysius of Halicarnassus, V. 40. – Titus Livius, II. 16.] When, in 275, the three hundred Fabii, forming the gens Fabia, offered alone to fight the Veians, they were followed by four thousand clients.[20 - Titus Livius, II. 48. – Dionysius of Halicarnassus, IX. 15.] The high class often reckoned, by means of its numerous adherents, on carrying measures by itself. In 286, the plebeians having refused to take part in the consular comitia, the patricians, followed by their clients, elected the consuls;[21 - Titus Livius, II. 64.] and in 296, a Claudius declared with pride that the nobility had no need of the plebeians to carry on war against the Volsci.[22 - Dionysius of Halicarnassus, X. 15.] The families of ancient origin long formed the state by themselves. To them exclusively the name of populus applied,[23 - “They called a decree of the people (scitum populi) the measure which the order of patricians had voted, on the proposal of a patrician, without the participation of the plebs.” (See Festus, under the words Scitum populi, p. 330.) – Titus Livius, speaking of the tribunes, puts the following words into the mouth of Appius Claudius: “Non enim populi, sed plebis, eum magistratum esse.” (Titus Livius, II. 56.)] as that of plebs was given to the plebeians.[24 - “The plebs was composed of all the mass of the people which was neither senator nor patrician.” (See Festus, under the words Scitum populi.)] Indeed, although in the sequel the word populus took a more extensive signification, Cicero says that it is to be understood as applying, not to the universality of the inhabitants, but to a reunion of men associated by a community of rights and interests.[25 - “Populus autem non omnis hominum cœtus quoquo modo congregatus, sed cœtus multitudinis juris consensu et utilitatis communione sociatus.” – (Cicero, De Republica, I. 25.)]

Political Organisation.

III. In a country where war was the principal occupation, the political organisation must naturally depend on the military organisation. A single chief had the superior direction, an assembly of men pre-eminent in importance and age formed the council, while the political rights belonged only to those who supported the fatigues of war.

The king, elected generally by the assembly of the gentes,[26 - “Populus curiatis eum (Numam) comitiis regem esse jusserat. Tullum Hostilium populus regem, interrege rogante, comitiis curiatis creavit. Servius, Tarquinio sepulto, populum de se ipse consuluit jussusque regnare legem de imperio suo curiatam tulit.” (Cicero, De Republica, II. 13-21.)] commanded the army. Sovereign pontiff, legislator, and judge in all sacred matters, he dispensed justice[27 - “The predecessors of Servius Tullius brought all causes before their tribunal, and pronounced judgment themselves in all disputes which regarded the State or individuals. He separated these two things, and, reserving to himself the cognizance of affairs which concerned the State, abandoned to other judges the causes of individuals, with injunctions, nevertheless, to regulate their judgments according to the laws which he had passed.” (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, IV. 25.)] in all criminal affairs which concerned the Republic. He had for insignia a crown of gold and a purple robe, and for escort twenty-four lictors,[28 - “The consuls, like the ancient kings, have twelve lictors carrying axes and twelve lictors carrying rods.” (Appian, Syrian Wars, 15.)] some carrying axes surrounded with rods, others merely rods.[29 - “From that time Tarquinius Superbus carried, during the rest of his life, a crown of gold, a toga of embroidered purple, and a sceptre of ivory, and his throne was also of ivory; when he administered justice, or walked abroad in the town, he was preceded by twelve lictors, who carried axes surrounded with rods. (Dionysius overlooks the twelve other lictors who carried rods only.) After the kings had been expelled from Rome, the annual consuls continued to use all these insignia, except the crown and the robe with purple embroidery. These two only were withdrawn, because they were odious and disagreeable to the people. But even these were not entirely abolished, since they still used ornaments of gold and dress of embroidered purple, when, after a victory, the Senate decreed them the honours of the triumph.” (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, III. 62.)] At the death of the king, a magistrate, called interrex, was appointed by the Senate to exercise the royal authority during the five days which intervened before the nomination of his successor. This office continued, with the same title, under the Consular Republic, when the absence of the consuls prevented the holding of the comitia.

The Senate, composed of the richest and most illustrious of the patricians, to the number at first of a hundred, of two hundred after the union with the Sabines, and of three hundred after the admission of the gentes minores under Tarquin, was the council of the ancients, taking under its jurisdiction the interests of the town, in which were then concentrated all the interests of the State.

The patricians occupied all offices, supported alone the burden of war, and consequently had alone the right of voting in the assemblies.

The gentes were themselves divided into three tribes. Each, commanded by a tribune,[30 - “The soldiers of Romulus, to the number of three thousand, were divided into three bodies, called ‘tribes.’” (Dio Cassius, Fragm., XIV., edit. Gros. – Dionysius of Halicarnassus, II. 7. – Plutarch, Romulus, 25.) – “The name of tribune of the soldiers is derived from the circumstance that the three tribes of the Ramnes, the Luceres, and the Tatiens each sent three to the army.” (Varro, De Lingua Latina, V. § 81, p. 32, edit. O. Müller.)] was obliged, under Romulus, to furnish a thousand soldiers (indeed, miles comes from mille) and a hundred horsemen (celeres). The tribe was divided into ten curiæ; at the head of each curia was a curion. The three tribes, furnishing three thousand foot soldiers and three hundred horsemen, formed at first the legion. Their number was soon doubled by the adjunction of new cities.[31 - Dionysius of Halicarnassus, II. 35. Attempts have been made to explain in different ways the origin of the word curia. Some have derived it from the word curare, or from the name of the town of Cures, or from κὑριος, “a lord:” it seems more natural to trace it to quiris (curis), which had the signification of a lance (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, II. 48. – Plutarch, Romulus, for thus we obtain a term analogous with that of the Middle Ages, where spear signified a man-at-arms, accompanied by six or eight armed followers. And as the principal aim of the formation of the curia was to furnish a certain number of armed citizens, it is possible that they may have given to the whole the name of a part. We read in Ovid, Fasti, II. lines 477-480: —“Sive quod hasta curis priscis est dicta Sabinis,Bellicus a telo venit in astra deus:Sive suo regi nomen posuere Quirites,Seu quis Romanis junxerat ille Cures.”]

The curia, into which a certain number of gentes entered, was then the basis of the political and military organisation, and hence originated the name of Quirites to signify the Roman people.

The members of the curia were constituted into religious associations, having each its assemblies and solemn festivals which established bonds of affiliation between them. When their assemblies had a political aim, the votes were taken by head;[32 - Titus Livius, 1. 43.] they decided the question of peace or war; they nominated the magistrates of the town; and they confirmed or abrogated the laws.[33 - Dionysius of Halicarnassus, II. 14, and IV. 20.]

The appeal to the people,[34 - “The appeal to the people existed even under the kings, as the books of the pontiffs show.” (Cicero, De Republica, II. 31.)] which might annul the judgments of the magistrates, was nothing more than the appeal to the curia; and it was by having recourse to it, after having been condemned by the decemvirs, that the survivor of the three Horatii was saved.

The policy of the kings consisted in blending together the different races and breaking down the barriers which separated the different classes. To effect the first of these objects, they divided the lower class of the people into corporations,[35 - Plutarch, Numa, 17. – Pliny, Natural History, XXXIV. 1.] and augmented the number of the tribes and changed their constitution;[36 - “Servius Tullius conformed no longer as aforetime to the ancient order of three tribes, distinguished by origin, but to the four new tribes which he had established by quarters.” (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, IV. 14.)] but to effect the second, they introduced, to the great discontent of the higher class, plebeians among the patricians,[37 - Dionysius of Halicarnassus, III. 61. – Titus Livius, I. 35.] and raised the freedmen to the rank of citizens.[38 - Dionysius of Halicarnassus, IV. 22.] In this manner, each curia became considerably increased in numbers; but, as the votes were taken by head, the poor patricians were numerically stronger than the rich.

Servius Tullius, though he preserved the curiæ, deprived them of their military organisation, that is, he no longer made it the basis of his system of recruiting. He instituted the centuries, with the double aim of giving as a principle the right of suffrage to all the citizens, and of creating an army which was more national, inasmuch as he introduced the plebeians into it; his design was indeed to throw on the richest citizens the burden of war,[39 - Dionysius of Halicarnassus, IV. 19. “Servius Tullius, by these means, threw back upon the richest all the costs and dangers of war.” (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, IV. 20.)] which was just, each equipping and maintaining himself at his own cost. The citizens were no longer classified by castes, but according to their fortunes. Patricians and plebeians were placed in the same rank if their income was equal. The influence of the rich predominated, without doubt, but only in proportion to the sacrifices required of them.

Servius Tullius ordered a general report of the population to be made, in which every one was obliged to declare his age, his fortune, the name of his tribe and that of his father, and the number of his children and of his slaves. This operation was called census.[40 - “If Numa was the legislator of the religious institutions, posterity proclaims Servius as the founder of the order which distinguishes in the Republic the difference of rank, dignity, and fortune. It was he who established the census, the most salutary of all institutions for a people destined to so much greatness. Fortunes, and not individuals, were called upon to support the burdens of the State. The census established the classes, the centuries, and that order which constitutes the ornament of Rome during peace and its strength daring war.” (Titus Livius, I. 42.)] The report was inscribed on tables,[41 - Dionysius of Halicarnassus, IV. 16.] and, once terminated, all the citizens were called together in arms in the Campus Martius. This review was called the closing of the lustrum, because it was accompanied with sacrifices and purifications named lustrations. The term lustrum was applied to the interval of five years between two censuses.[42 - “When Servius Tullius had completed the taking of the census, he ordered all the citizens to assemble in arms in the greatest of the fields situated near the town, and, having arranged the horsemen in squadrons, the footmen in phalanx, and the light-armed men in respective orders, he submitted them to a lustration, by the immolation of a bull, a ram, and a he-goat. He ordered that the victims should be led thrice round about the army, after which he sacrificed to Mars, to whom this field was dedicated. From that epoch to the present time the Romans have continued to have the same ceremony performed, by the most holy of magistracies, at the completion of each census; it is what they call a lustrum. The total number of all the Romans enumerated, according to the writing of the tables of the census, gave 300 men less than 85,000.” (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, IV. 22.)]

The citizens were divided into six classes,[43 - “This good order of government (under Servius Tullius) was sustained among the Romans during several centuries, but in our days it has been changed, and, by force of circumstances, has given place to a more democratic system. It is not that the centuries have been abolished, but the voters were no longer called together with the ancient regularity, and their judgments have no longer the same equity, as I have observed in my frequent attendance at the comitia.” (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, IV. 21.)] and into a hundred and ninety-three centuries, according to the fortune of each, beginning with the richest and ending with the poorest. The first class comprised ninety-eight centuries, eighteen of which were knights; the second and fourth, twenty-two; the third, twenty; the fifth, thirty; and the sixth, although the most numerous, forming only one.[44 - “The poorest citizens, in spite of their great number, were the last to give their vote, and made but one century.” (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, IV. 21.)] The first class contained a smaller number of citizens, yet, having a greater number of centuries, it was obliged to pay more than half the tax, and furnish more legionaries than any other class.

The votes continued to be taken by head, as in the curiæ, but the majority of the votes in each century counted only for one suffrage. Now, as the first class had ninety-eight centuries, while the others, taken together, had only ninety-five, it is clear that the votes of the first class were enough to carry the majority. The eighteen centuries of knights first gave their votes, and then the eighty centuries of the first class: if they were not agreed, appeal was made to the vote of the second class, and so on in succession; but, says Livy, it hardly ever happened that they were obliged to descend to the last.[45 - Titus Livius, I. 43.] Though, according to its original signification, the century should represent a hundred men, it already contained a considerably greater number. Each century was divided into the active part, including all the men from eighteen to forty-six years of age, and the sedentary part, charged with the guard of the town, composed of men from forty-six to sixty years old.[46 - “From the age of seventeen years, they were called to be soldiers. Youth began with that age, and continued to the age of forty-six. At that date old age began.” (Aulus Gellius, X. 28. – Dionysius of Halicarnassus, IV. 16.)]

With regard to those of the sixth class, omitted altogether by many authors, they were exempt from all military service, or, at any rate, they were enrolled only in case of extreme danger.[47 - Titus Livius speaks only of a hundred and ninety-two centuries; Dionysius of Halicarnassus reckons a hundred and ninety-three. “In the Roman plebs, the poorest citizens, those who reported to the census not more than fifteen hundred ases, were called proletarii; those who were not worth more than three hundred and seventy-five ases, and who thus possessed hardly anything, were called capite censi. Now, the fortune and patrimony of the citizen being for the State a sort of guarantee, the pledge and foundation of his love for his country, the men of the two last classes were only enrolled in case of extreme danger. Yet the position of the proletarii was a little more honourable than that of the capite censi; in times of difficulty, when there was want of young men, they were incorporated in the hastily-formed militia, and equipped at the cost of the State; their name contained no allusion to the mere poll-tax to which they were subjected; less humiliating, it reminded one only of their destination to give children to their country. The scantiness of their patrimony preventing them from contributing to the aid of the State, they at least contributed to the population of the city.” (Aulus Gellius, XVI. 10.)] The centuries of knights, who formed the cavalry, recruited among the richest citizens, tended to introduce a separate order among the nobility,[48 - “Tarquinius Priscus afterwards gave to the knights the organisation which they have preserved to the present time.” (Cicero, De Republica, II. 20.)] which shows the importance of the chief called to their command. In fact, the chief of the celeres was, after the king, the first magistrate of the city, as, at a later period, under the Republic, the magister equitum became the lieutenant of the dictator.

The first census of Servius Tullius gave a force of eighty thousand men in a condition to bear arms,[49 - “It is said that the number of citizens inscribed under this title was 80,000. Fabius Pictor, the most ancient of our historians, adds that this number only includes the citizens in condition to bear arms.” (Titus Livius, I. 44.)] which is equivalent to two hundred and ninety thousand persons of the two sexes, to whom may be added, from conjectures, which, however, are rather vague, fifteen thousand artisans, merchants, or indigent people, deprived of all rights of citizenship, and fifteen thousand slaves.[50 - The different censuses of the people furnished by the ancient historians have been explained in different manners. Did the numbers given designate all the citizens, or only the heads of families, or those who had attained the age of puberty? In my opinion, these numbers in Livy, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and Plutarch, applied to all the men in a condition to carry arms, that is, according to the organisation of Servius Tullius, to those from seventeen to sixty years old. This category formed, in fact, the true Roman citizens. Under seventeen, they were too young to count in the State; above sixty, they were too old.We know that the aged sexagenarians were called depontani, because they were forbidden the bridges over which they must go to the place of voting. (Festus, under the word sexagenarius, p. 834. – Cicero, Pro S. Roscio Amerino, 35.)80,000 men in condition to carry arms represent, according to the statistics of the present time, fifty-five hundredths of the male part of the population, say 145,000 men, and for the two sexes, supposing them equal in number, 290,000 souls. In fact, in France, in a hundred inhabitants, there are 35 who have not passed the age of seventeen, 55 aged from seventeen to sixty years, and 10 of more than sixty.In support of the above calculation, Dionysius of Halicarnassus relates that in the year 247 of Rome a subscription was made in honour of Horatius Cocles: 300,000 persons, men and women, gave the value of what each might expend in one day for his food. (V. 25.)As to the number of slaves, we find in another passage of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (IX. 25) that the women, children, slaves, merchants, and artisans amounted to a number triple of that of the citizens.If, then, the number of citizens in condition to carry arms was 80,000, and the rest of the population equalled three times that number, we should have for the total 4 x 80,000 = 320,000 souls. And, subtracting from this number the 290,000 obtained above, there would remain 30,000 for the slaves and artisans.Whatever proportion we admit between these two last classes, the result will be that the slaves were at that period not numerous.]