the citizen was called from home by public duties, the slave took the direction of the farm, aided by some hired laborer. Even to the time of the first Punic war, there are found among the most illustrious citizens examples of this ancient moderation. Thus, Regulus, at the head of the army of Africa, asked his recall, giving as a reason, that the death of his slave, and the unfaithfulness of his hired man, left his little field neglected, and his family in distress."- Wallon, Vol. II. p. 7.

What was naturally the character of slavery in this early state of society? Mild, because all the social relations, the power of the paterfamilias over wife and children, the mutual connection of patron and client, in fine, the whole patriarchal life, supposes a simple, contented frame of mind, good feeling between the members, and a conscious, but unstudied, community of interests. As soon as this spontaneous bond is loosened, as soon as the dependent members become discontented, and the ruling members harsh, as soon as the feeling of individual interest creeps in, as soon, indeed, as the question begins to be asked why this connection exists, — the patriarchal system is at an end; and if its forms continue, as they will, it is no longer a patriarchal government, but a tyranny. But Roman slavery at the period of which we are treating was mild for other reasons as well.

"The slaves tilling the land for the master were much less numerous than the free farmers (Pächter). Wherever the immigrating nation. has not at once enslaved a population in the mass, slaves appear originally to have been found in very limited numbers, and in consequence of this the free laborers have played a quite different part in the state from what we find later... ... But even the slave was in general of Italian origin; the Volscian, Sabine, Etruscan captive must stand in a different relation to his master from that of the Syrian and Celt in later times. Besides, he had, as occupier of a portion of his master's land (Parcelinhaber), not legally, to be sure, but in fact, land and cattle, wife and child, as well as the proprietor, and after emancipation came into practice, it lay within his power to work out his freedom."-Mommsen, Vol. I. p. 178.

The patriarchal state of society is one which, whether on the whole beneficial or not, is necessarily confined to an early stage of society. To this stage it may be, and no doubt is, admirably adapted; but it cannot endure the light of literature, sci

ence, the arts, and especially of commerce, the great engine in the advancement of civilization, which depends entirely on individual rights and free competition, and is therefore from the outset at war with it. We do not care to argue from the "rights of man," that it ought to disappear; it is enough to say that it does, and must, disappear. So soon as anything suggests, whether truly or falsely, to the subordinate members of society, that they are deprived by law of anything to which they have a right by nature, the result follows which we have sketched above, individual interest begins to be consulted, the dependent members become uneasy, and the rulers despotic. Seldom has a government at this crisis the wisdom to yield with a good grace what must be sooner or later lost. The Roman government was no exception.

The force which undermined, and at last shook down the patriarchal structure in Rome, was the growing feeling of the clients that they no longer needed the protection of the patricians, and no longer owed them allegiance. The struggle ensued which is familiar to all, and the details of which do not immediately concern our subject. From the moment the first blow was struck, the patriarchal system was doomed; but two centuries were required for its final overthrow. During this period, and until slavery on a large scale for speculation was fully established, which we have said was after the second Punic war, we have only a few indications, but those decisive, of the ruin this institution was beginning to work. The seizure of the Capitol by Appius Herdonius, B. C. 460, gives us a glimpse at the uneasiness of the slaves at this time in the fact that its leader held out freedom as an inducement for slaves to join his standard. And this well-known incident is by no means alone. Servile insurrections were among the constant terrors of the early republic, as they were among the most fearful horrors of the later republic. The most important indication, however, of the tendencies of this period is given in the Licinian laws, B. C. 366, which, besides their provision that no person should occupy more than five hundred jugera (about 250 acres) of the public domain, bound the landholders to employ slaves upon their land only in a certain proportion to the number of free laborers, a provision which

shows that alarm had already been taken at the increase of slave labor, and the consequent decay of small freeholds. The statesmen of this period knew that the strength of the state consisted in these small proprietors; and had not these welltimed and judicious laws been suffered to fall at once into desuetude, they might have effectually prevented the growth of latifundia; for it was chiefly public land that was held in large estates, and it was only by the employment of slaves that the large estates could be rendered profitable.

"Latifundia perdidere Italiam." Large estates ruined Italy. This is Pliny's judgment, and its truth is generally accepted. Let us illustrate the process.

The Senators, having the exclusive disposal of the public lands, had been accustomed from early times to occupy them themselves for a nominal rent. We can hardly wonder that, as no adequate control was placed over them by the Licinian law, they should disregard its requirements, and continue the old abuse. The law soon became a dead letter, and nothing now could have prevented the dreaded result but a correct public opinion, a clear apprehension of the future needs of the nation, or a healthy social tendency. Probably all these united would have been needed, but all eventually failed. Slavery undermined the social structure, and was the chief support of the system of large estates. For the present, to be sure, its influence was slight, and the government was wise enough to counteract it by numerous colonies, planted in various parts of Italy. But this statesmanlike policy did not last long.

"Wherever," says Mommsen, "a fixed number of old families of established wealth and inherited power conducts the government, they will in times of danger manifest as incomparably an unswerving consistency (zähe Folgerichtigkeit) and heroic self-sacrifice, as in time of repose they will impress on their rule the stamp of short-sightedness, selfishness, and indolence."- Vol. II. p. 67.

These are precisely the qualities displayed by the government of Rome, the first in the struggle with Carthage, the second when that struggle was over, and there was no longer any enemy to fear. If the social tendencies and policy of the government failed to erect any barrier against the new evil,

still less did public opinion after the second Punic war, the time at which it became glaringly apparent. Rome was at this time almost wholly surrendered to the love of gain. She still loved power, but money more. Public spirit, official fidelity, individual honesty, once leading features of the Roman character, were so no longer. The Senate, it is true, still clung to its traditional policy, and would make the earth bend before it; but few generals or proconsuls could withstand the corruptions of the times, and the temptations of office. Ignominious treaties of peace, still more disgraceful violations of them, disadvantageous alliances, unjust judgments, extortions and oppressions without bound, filled their coffers. Rome was as much hated as feared. Invincible by steel, she was soon found helpless against gold. The wars against Perseus, Viriathus, and Numantia, and especially that against Jugurtha, show the unparalleled baseness of the generals, and the powerlessness of the Senate to check it.*

It is well that in the growth of communities the purse supersedes the sword as the arbiter of fate; and in the evils, we should not overlook the benefits of the change. It was the misfortune of Rome that, while the ferocity of manners was not softened thereby, the new scramble for wealth was neither adequately controlled by law, religion, and public opinion, nor connected with any great industrial and humanitarian enterprises, such as make the same contest in our day rather beneficent than harmful. It was wholly selfish. When once indi

* The character of the times is well illustrated by the following anecdote of Marcus Brutus, - one of the most upright men of his age, -related by Wallon, Vol. II. p. 42, from Cicero's letter, Ad Atticum, VI. 2. "A law of Rome had formerly abolished (supprime) the rate of interest: they regulated it then at pleasure. The Stoic Brutus lent to the Senate of Salamis [in Cyprus] at four per cent a month, forty-eight per cent a year. He had obtained two decrees of the Senate to cover whatever illegality this loan, made to pay the tributes, originally had; and, in order to force the payment of the interest, Scaptius, his man of straw, had obtained from Appius, governor of Cilicia, a command and troops; with them he besieged the Senate [of Salamis], or, if the term is preferred, blockaded it only, but so well that several Senators died of hunger. The Salaminians wished at any price to free themselves from this debt; they met to pay interest and capital; but this was not the object of Brutus. His agent refused the capital, he only wished for the interest, and sent to Cicero, successor of Appius, for new troops, only fifty knights. . . .. After which had not Brutus a good right to cry out at Philippi, 'Virtue, thou art only a name!'" The loan, it is to be remembered, was illegal from the outset.

vidual interest had overthrown the patriarchal system in Rome, it was never checked until it had swallowed up all honor, law, and religion. The rulers of Rome at this epoch never asked themselves whether it were well for the state that they should appropriate all the public lands, adding to them whatever small estates they could obtain by force or fraud, and that slaves, scantily fed and clothed, and worked up like machines, at the highest productive rate, should till the land in place of the peasants of seven jugera, once the strength of Italy. Or if the question were asked, it was quickly answered, that more money was made in this way, and that was all which concerned either them or the state.

“If small husbandry (la petite culture) yields to large in an economic point of view, if it leaves a smaller part of its gross product to be disposed of, it is especially because it gives a larger proportion to the pay of the laborer, because it supports more arms. Large husbandry expends less and gives a larger income; small husbandry consumes more, and in a country which has no manufactures maintains a larger population of workmen. Now what did Italy need? Wealth? Conquest gave it that of the world. It needed, to maintain its position, a numerous population of freemen. Its strength was then in reality connected with the maintenance of small husbandry, and it was not without reason that those who wished to lay the foundations of Rome for eternity, measured with so sparing a hand the field with which the colonist was to be satisfied. The latifundia, by the change which their extension introduced into the system of agriculture, diminished, therefore, the free population. When a hundred domains were united into one, for a hundred masters there was one, and the others could no longer remain on the alienated land, even as hired laborers. But this evil would have been a small affair if slavery had not been there to aggravate it. Driven as master from his own patrimony, driven as farmer from the domain of the state, the plebeian saw himself besides shut out for the most part from rustic labor.". Wallon, Vol. II. p. 347.

Thus no restraint was placed on the growth of latifundia, and during the sixth century of the city (B. C. 250-150) they were extended with alarming rapidity. The war with Hannibal, by draining the country of men, and breaking up the small estates over a large part of Italy, helped to bring about this result, thus hastening the downfall of Rome in a way VOL. XCI.-NO. 188.

9.