Roman Public LifeGreenidge, A. H. J. (Abel Hendy Jones)
History
Roman Public Life
Greenidge, A. H. J. (Abel Hendy Jones)
Constitutional history -- Rome; Rome -- Politics and government
The second principle in Rome’s Italian policy, first projected after the
close of the Latin war and carried to its completion after the struggle
with Pyrrhus, resulted in a great military hegemony over states, whose
treaty relations enabled them to call themselves the “allies” (_socii_)
of Rome. Collective names were soon devised to indicate the closeness of
the union thus formed; at first the confederates were “wearers of the
toga” (_togati_), a name that applied equally to the Latin, Sabellian,
and Etruscan. But the introduction of the Greek _pallium_ into the league
destroyed this basis of classification; and the later term _Italici_ was
evolved, a word whose geographical signification emphasises the idea of a
territorial limit to certain rights—one which, as we shall see, was not
rigorously preserved, but which marks the distinction, valid alike for
the Republic and the Principate, between Italy as the privileged and the
provinces as the unprivileged world.
The condition of a conquered town, whether in Italy or the provinces,
before its alliance with Rome, is described by the word _deditio_, a term
which implies absolute surrender to the power (_ditio_, _potestas_)[1432]
or to the honour (_fides_)[1433] of the Roman people, the two latter
expressions being to the Roman mind legally equivalent.[1434] Such
a _dediticia civitas_ is in the negative condition of an absolute
suspension of rights, and remains in this case until some are given back
by Rome with a guarantee of their permanence. _Deditio_ is, therefore,
a temporary _status_, although it might be occasionally prolonged as a
penal measure, as it was in the case of the revolted Bruttii after the
Hannibalic war.[1435] In Italy, as a rule, the terms that Rome dictated
were those of a military alliance, the conditions for membership of this
being, firstly, external sovereignty (_libertas_), as conditioned by the
terms and objects of the league;[1436] secondly, internal independence—a
condition which the Greek cities called αὐτονομία, and which, in a
Latin charter to a provincial town, appears in the form of the permit
_suis legibus uti_;[1437] thirdly, a basis for these rights, as also
for the obligations which these states owed to Rome. In dealings, with
the extra-Italian world this basis was either a charter (_lex data_),
given by the Roman people and revocable by them, or a treaty (_foedus_),
equally sanctioned by the people but irrevocable, as being sworn to by
the two contracting parties; its revocation could only be the consequence
of a genuine _casus belli_. In the first case the state is a _libera
civitas_, in the second a _libera et foederata civitas_,[1438] or, in its
more general and briefer designation, a _foederata civitas_.[1439] In
Italy positive evidence furnishes us only with the _foederatae_, but the
existence of the _liberae civitates_ must be assumed, since, immediately
on the beginning of provincial organisation in Sicily, this _status_ is
adopted.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account