XIV

ROMAN HISTORY

THE work of the last decade in the study of Roman History has been brilliantly sketched by Professor Haverfield in the Quarterly Review.1 His conclusions as to the general tenor of the work produced are well borne out by the publications of the past year. Professor Reid has gathered up the fruits of much labour in his Municipalities of the Roman Empire,2 which is likely to remain the standard work on the subject for many years. The first part of the book describes the development of the municipium within Italy, and incidentally throws light on many points in republican history. Then follows a survey of the Empire, province by province, 'designed to show how the Roman rulers influenced the development and decay of the municipal organisation in each.' The main features of municipal life and society are then summed up in the remaining chapters. In this perhaps more than in any other book is shown the master-work of the Romans in building up and fortifying civilisation by adapting the conditions which existed.

Two other pieces of constructive work are the second edition of Pais' Storia dei Romani,3 vol. i., and Grenier's Bologne Villanovienne et Étrusque.* Étrusque. Pais' new edition, which goes down to the end of the Regal Period, contains those constructive chapters which were so much missed in

1 Roman History since Mommsen, October 1912, pp. 323-45.

2 Cambridge (Univ. Press), 1913; 12s. net.

3 Rome (Loescher), 1913; 18 l.

4 Fontemoing, 1912; 20 fr. See also p. 3, and compare A. Piganiol, La protohistoire Bolonaise, Journ. Sav., 1912, pp. 105-16.

his brilliant first edition. His criticism remains as incisive and sceptical as ever; the constructive chapters are no less bold and original. Some of his conclusions will be most willingly accepted by those who disagree most with his standards of criticism. Rather ungratefully, Pais attacks the general validity of archaeological and ethnological conclusions for the early history of Italy, and argues that the scientific criticism of tradition is at present our only hope. The force of this generalisation is greatly weakened by the appearance of Grenier's admirable study, which shows what can be done by a proper combination of archaeological and literary evidence. He agrees in the main with Brizio that the Villanova remains are the work of the Umbrians, and are neither Etruscan nor the direct development of the terramare civilisation. He parts company with Brizio in showing that the Umbrian immigration came from Central Italy and not from the north. The Umbrians were then superseded towards the end of the sixth century by the Etruscans, whose first settlements were west of the Appennines. The value of archaeology for Roman History is further emphasised by H. Stuart Jones' Companion to Roman History.1 Within the rather narrow limits which the author has imposed on himself, the book is masterly and indispensable. Welcome emphasis is laid on the national character of the external setting of Roman life.

A most pressing question is the reconstruction and history of the earliest Roman tradition, and our knowledge has been much advanced by Kornemann's Der Priestercodex in der Regia. The author traces three stages in the reconstruction of Roman history by the pontifical college, and shows the kind of evidence on which each is based. His conclusions are bold, but in the main established, and afford a welcome piece of firm ground for the rebuilding of Roman History. Meanwhile, de Gubernatis3 has argued strongly

1 Oxford (Clarendon Press), 1913; 15s. net.

2 Tübingen, 1912; 2 m.

3 Riv. di Fil. 1912, pp. 444-62.

against the theory of Soltau1 and others that the praetextae have played a decisive role in the formation of Roman tradition. In their place he would invoke the national popular poetry postulated by Perizonius and Niebuhr.

Another work dealing with the criticism of source material is Laqueur's Polybius,2 where the well-known self-contradictions and discrepancies in the historian are explained by a five-fold redaction by Polybius himself. It is unlikely that all Laqueur's conclusions will command assent; indeed some of them are incapable of strict proof. The muchdebated question of the sources for the second Punic war has received bold treatment by Kahrstedt in the third volume (218-146 B.C.) of Meltzer's Geschichte der Karthagers The author contends that Livy has in the main followed Coelius, using Polybius, as a rule, only for purposes of comparison. Both Coelius and Polybius have independently used a common source, most probably Silenus. Apart from this discussion, the historical narrative is instructive in that Kahrstedt has the courage of his beliefs, and refuses to admit anything which his criticism makes suspect. The first chapter on the condition of the Carthaginian Empire in 218 B.C. is based on widely gathered archaeological evidence and marks a decided advance in our knowledge on this subject.

The social and political history of the Republic has called forth several special studies. Neumann's bold theory that the early constitutional history of Rome is mainly that of economic emancipation has roused a worthy opponent in Soltau, who insists on the soundness of the Roman 'constitutional tradition' as distinct from the annalistic pseudo-history of politics, and then proceeds to examine the institution of Clientship, in which he finds little trace either

5

1 Die Anfänge der römischen Geschichtsschreibung, Leipzig, 1909. 2 Leipzig, 1912; 10 m. See also p. 111.

3 Berlin, 1913; 20 m.

4 See Gercke und Norden, Einleitung in die Altertumswissenschaft, iii., p. 395 f.

5 Grundherrschaft und Klientel in Rom., Neue Jahrb. der Phil., 1912, pp. 488-500.

of serfdom or of the position of the freedmen.1 He prefers to find its most usual origin in a semi-religious pact of faith between a defeated enemy and one of his conquerors. In contrast with this stands an article by A. Rosenberg,2 who regards early republican society as made up of patricians, peasants in economic dependence, and privileged non - Romans who made up the plebs of the city tribes. -in the main, Latins resident at Rome. The same article contains a useful discussion of the meaning of sacrosanctus and of the early powers of the tribunes of the plebs.

Meanwhile the thorny problem of the term of the censorship has been attacked by O. Leuze,3 who concludes that the term of the lustrum was never fixed by law either for the census or for the purposes of state contracts. The first of these contentions seems to be fairly well proved, the second remains open to doubt. Another piece of patient research is Die Nobilität der römischen Republik, by Gelzer, who reaches the two conclusions that the necessary condition of nobilitas is not the ius imaginum, but the possession of consular gentiles, and that principes must be equated with consulares.

The agrarian question at Rome in early times is the subject of a dissertation by K. Schwarze, which contains a useful collection of evidence handled without criticism, and an effective defence of the historicity of the Licinio-Sextian laws.5

The question of the Gracchan legislation and the lex Thoria is still a battlefield of controversy. Cardanali has published an able monograph in which the whole matter is discussed with much learning. On the question of sources,

1 See Mommsen, R. F., 1.359 ff.

2 Studien zur Entstehung der Plebs, Hermes, 1913, pp. 359 ff.

3 Zur Geschichte der römischen Censur., Halle, 1912. See the criticisms

of W. Soltau in the Berl. phil. Woch., 1913, p. 681 f.

4 Leipzig, 1912; 3.20 m., cloth 4.80 m.

5 Altrömischen Agrarprobleme (Halle a.-d.-S.), 1913; 2.90 m.

6 Studi Gracchani (Rome), 1912; 7.50 1.