Chapter VIII: Part 8

There is only one San Marino within the geographical bounds of Italy, and San Marino is not one of the great cities of Italy. It is therefore a harmless political curiosity, with whose rights the Italian kingdom has no temptation to meddle. It might be otherwise if the kingdom had many such independent towns and districts within its borders, and if any of the great cities of Italy were reckoned among them. Now one of the ugliest features of Roman history, one which comes out in every page of the history of the second century B.C., is the ungenerous way in which Rome treated her independent allies the moment they ceased to be useful to her. As long as they served as checks on some other power, so long they were made not a little of; as soon as the dangerous power was overthrown or humbled, the ally which had helped to overthrow it became an object of Roman jealousy. The friendly power whose day of usefulness was over was exposed to endless attempts on the part of Rome to weaken and break it in pieces. Such is the tale of the kingdom of Pergamon, of the city-commonwealth of Rhodes, of the confederation of Achaia. No part of Roman history is more disgraceful than the dealings of Rome with those three states, the model governments of their several classes. No learning, no eloquence, can avail to whitewash the faithless and brutal dealings of the Roman Senate towards powers whose only fault was to be weaker than Rome and to have done good service to Rome. This feeling of jealousy towards the allies lingered on long after all ground for jealousy had passed away, when the free city was free only within its own walls, and could not lift hand or foot against the mighty ally by whose dominion it was hemmed in. But the wrongs of these cities under Roman rule were far more largely due to more immediate causes, to the overbearing love of power, to the baser love of gain, which formed the dark side of the Roman character. The liberties of these weak states were often encroached on, not only by the Roman state itself, but by particular Roman magistrates, and even by powerful men who were not at the moment magistrates. The establishment of the Empire undoubtedly did something to check the oppressions of the Roman governors, on whom there was very little check under the commonwealth. But if the Empire led to less oppression on the part of the representatives of the central power, it led to more meddling on the part of the central power itself. A man placed at the head of the world stands in a different position from a city placed at the head of the world. To the ruling city the dependent states are simply dependent states; it gets what it can out of them, but it has no temptation to meddle for the sake of meddling. The ruling man has temptations to meddle, and it may even be that, the better disposed he is, his temptations to meddle become greater. The natural tendency of the Empire was to unity and centralization everywhere and in every way. Under imperial rule, the endless variety of relations among the allies, dependents, and subjects of Rome gradually changed into the one character of direct members of the Roman Empire. But the change was slow. Sovereign commonwealths sank into municipalities, and municipalities sank into something less than municipalities, by mere force of circumstances, without any formal act. It is often very hard to say when this or that free city finally lost its distinct being through absolute incorporation in the Roman Empire. It is certain that the memory of past freedom, as something that still was not wholly past, lived on for ages. Under the early Empire the commonwealths of Greece and Asia, whatever was their formal relation, were in practice, not only subject to the Roman Empire, but very much at the mercy of the governors of the provinces within which they geographically lay. But they still were commonwealths, though dependent or even subject commonwealths. Their senates, assemblies, or other ruling bodies, had practically sunk to the functions of town-councils, and they were open, in a way in which an English town-council is not, to the caprice of an external power. But they were town-councils which had been sovereign parliaments. Some of them were in theory sovereign parliaments still. And even those which were furthest from that character, the councils of those towns which were neither free and allied states, nor Roman colonies, nor in any way privileged above the general provincial relation, had not wholly lost their original character. Deep into the time of the Empire, the old character of the Roman dominion, that of a city ruling over other cities, still left its traces. In such a state of things the authority of the councils or assemblies of the subject states might practically be smaller than that of the town-council of an English borough. That is, the assembly might be afraid of acting in any matter of importance without the leave of the central power or its representative. It might practically confine its action to matters of routine and ceremony, at most to votes of honours and setting up of statues, because any bolder action would awaken Roman jealousy. That is to say, the free and allied state could in theory do everything, even the provincial town could in theory do many things, according to its own free will. But generations of submission to an irresistible neighbour had taught it not to exercise that free will except according to the higher will of the power which was supreme over all. If the rights of the subordinate state became formal or even null, it was because they were wide and indefinite; they were the powers of a community which still kept a distinct being, but which was placed under the irresistible influence, sometimes under the direct dominion, of a stronger community. This is a position altogether different from that of a town or district in a modern kingdom or commonwealth where every part of the land has equal rights. In such a kingdom or commonwealth, whatever powers, great or small, this or that board or council has, are held according to the law of the land. As long as those powers are exercised according to the law of the land, no administrative interference is to be feared; if the law is broken, if the local authority steps beyond its legal powers, the wrong will be made good, not by an arbitrary will, but by a legal process. It was wholly different with the cities of which we speak, whether free, dependent, or subject; they were still separate commonwealths with inherent rights, even if those rights could no longer be exercised; their assemblies had once been parliaments, and to both the forms and the feelings of parliaments they still clave. And one city at least among the allies of Rome kept its substantial freedom down to an age when many fancy that the Roman power itself had altogether vanished from the earth. The freedom of Cherson was overthrown, not by Mummius in the second century on one side, not by Vespasian in the first century on the other, but by the Amorian Theophilos in the ninth. Till that day the last of the Greek commonwealths lived on its ancient life, and for the simplest of reasons. Not only the Emperor himself, but the proconsul of Achaia, of Macedonia, or of Asia, could at any moment encroach on, the Emperor could at any moment destroy, the freedom of any Greek city that lay geographically within those provinces. He had always the physical power to encroach or to destroy; not uncommonly he had the will. But the commonwealth which lay far away in the Tauric Chersonêsos stood in another case. The faithful ally could not be changed into the helpless subject, except by the same kind of effort which was needed for a Gothic or a Persian war.

The long abiding independence of Cherson is a fact to which I have often had occasion to call attention from other points of view. So is the independence of the Lykian League, though the less favourable geographical position of that power allowed its freedom to come to an end eight hundred years sooner than the freedom of Cherson. I have elsewhere spoken of that League as perhaps the most skilfully planned example of a federal constitution that the elder day could show;[2] it concerns me now as an example of the degree of independence which a considerable territory could keep under the general supremacy of Rome, from the fall of Perseus to the reign of Claudius. For the story of its origin we have to go to the narrative, unhappily fragmentary, which Polybios gives of the events which led to the deliverance of Lykia from Rhodian rule;[3] for a full account of its constitution we have only to turn to the description of Strabo.[4] It is specially instructive when the geographer tells us that the League still kept the right of war and peace, though, he adds, in his day that right could not be exercised at all, or could be exercised only as Rome thought fit.[5] After reading this, it is certainly curious to read the comment of a recent scholar who thinks that the powers of the League and the measure of its independence were something like those of the city of London.[6] A nearer analogy might surely be found in the relations in which many of the smaller powers of Europe stood not very long back; it is not very unlike that in which some of them stand at this moment. The position of Lykia towards Rome is very like that in which various Italian and German states stood towards Austria forty years back. It is very like that in which Servia at this moment stands to Austria and Montenegro to Russia. It is in short the position of a “protected” state, whether the protection be avowed or only practical. But there is this important difference. A protected state now has at least some voice in choosing its protector; it can exercise the old Teutonic right of seeking a lord. And a small state may even keep perfect independence without any protector at all, simply through the jealousies of the greater powers. A small state may sometimes live on in perfect freedom surrounded by powers stronger than itself. Any one of them could at any moment put an end to its freedom; but none of them is likely to make the attempt, because the others, for their own ends, will not allow it. But Rome stood alone in the world; there was no choice of protectors; whatever independence was left was held only by Roman sufferance. Whenever it suited Roman policy or caprice to extinguish the independence of any state, the thing was done.

[2] History of Federal Government, i. 208.

[3] Polybios, xxx. 519; xxxi. 7, 16, 17.

[4] Strabo, xiv. 3, vol. iii. p. 219, Tauchnitz.

[5] Καὶ περὶ πολέμου δὲ καὶ εἰρήνης καὶ συμμαχίας ἐβουλεύοντο
πρότερον, νῦν δ' οὐκ εἰκὸς, ἀλλ' ἐπὶ τοῖς Ῥωμαίοις ταῦτ' ἀνάγκη
κεῖσθαι, πλὴν εἰ ἐκείνων ἐπιτρεψάντων ἢ ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν εἴη χρήσιμον.
That is to say, the right had never been formally taken away;
only it practically could not be exercised.

[6] In writing this article I have had several times in my
thoughts a controversy on “Home Rule under the Roman Empire,”
which will be found in two numbers of _Macmillan’s Magazine_ for
November 1882 and March 1883. This controversy is instructive in
many ways, specially as showing how utterly, and how contentedly,
large parts of Roman history and Roman literature may be passed
by, even by a scholar who enjoys a high repute in other branches
of those subjects. The comparison between the Lykian League and
the city of London comes from the second of the two articles. Its
author could hardly have read the description of the League in
Strabo.

The Lykian League, as embracing a considerable territory, has, from its geographical side, more in common with the kingdoms and principalities which lived on under Roman vassalage, than with the single city-commonwealths which supply the examples which most naturally occur to us. It must have been beyond the power of any single proconsul in a peaceful time seriously to interfere with the liberties of Lykia. It is true that the federal states of Greece still lived on for Pausanias to see them at work; and two generations earlier the sacred convocation of the Amphiktyons had drawn a new life from the measure of redistribution ordained by the Emperor Augustus.[7] But we may be sure that no confederation of old Greece kept anything like such a measure of political life as that which Strabo saw at work in Lykia. What little life there still was in the Greek world abode in the single cities, and there was doubtless more life among the Greek cities of Asia than in those of old Greece. Of Lykia in Strabo’s day we have only Strabo’s general description; we have no detailed illustrations of the working of the political system; least of all have we any speeches, any letters, any political treatises, either from Lykian orators or philosophers or from Roman magistrates who had dealings with the Lykian League or its cities. Let us leap on to the age of Trajan, and we shall find that that age is rich in materials for the political life of the Achaian and Bithynian provinces and of the free cities which lay within their geographical boundaries. We have four highly instructive contemporary writers, two Greek and two Latin, one of the latter being the renowned Emperor himself. We have from Plutarch a treatise on the duties of a Greek statesman of his day. We have from Diôn Chrysostom several speeches actually delivered in the assemblies of Greek cities in the reign of Trajan. We have the correspondence of Trajan himself with the younger Pliny when Pliny was proconsul of Bithynia. We thus get two sides of the picture. We see how things looked in the eyes of two literary Greeks, one of whom to be sure was bound to make the best of things and to make his rhetoric as acceptable as he could to his Greek hearers. We see also how things looked in the eyes of two official Romans, an Emperor and a proconsul who were among the best of their several classes, but whose very virtues laid them open to one special temptation. Both Trajan and Pliny loathed oppression and wrong of every kind, and they sincerely sought the welfare of all for whose welfare they were responsible. But for that very reason they were more likely to be led to constant meddling with the affairs of their subjects than rulers who might now and then be guilty of some gross piece of tyranny, but who for the most part left people alone in the time between one act of oppression and another. The colouring on the Greek and on the Roman side is very different; but the main outlines are the same in both pictures. In both cases we see cities which keep much--which in some cases keep everything--of the outward show of free commonwealths, but which do not dare to exercise their powers, even in very small matters, without the knowledge and good will of the Roman prince or his local representative.

[7] See History of Federal Government, i. 136.

The political treatise of the wise and kindly Plutarch[8] is one which cannot be read without sadness. To a Greek, a Bœotian, living in a land which had once been so great and which was so utterly fallen, the contrast between what had been and what was came more keenly home than it could come to his Asiatic contemporary. The cities of Diôn’s native Bithynia had never been so great in the past, and they were far more prosperous in the present, than the cities for whose would-be statesmen and orators the sage of Chairôneia had to give rules. But in both writers we find things looked at from the same general point of view. Local independence is assumed as the state of things which exists at least in theory. We read page after page of both Plutarch and Diôn without any hint that the commonwealths of which they were speaking had any superior beyond their own walls. Both write in a way in which no one would write for the instruction of a newly-chosen town-councillor in a modern state. It is for parliaments, not for town-councils, that the whole language is fitted. But ever and anon we come to some passage which shows us that the parliaments with which we are dealing are parliaments working in fetters, parliaments which can practically do nothing without the approval of a foreign superior. In our own land we find the nearest parallel in ecclesiastical bodies, and the likeness is increased by the fact that the range within which the Greek assemblies of that day were most active was that which concerned religious worship and that large class of subjects which in Greek ideas were connected with religious worship. A Convocation organized like a Parliament, carrying on its debates as freely as a Parliament, but whose acts go for nothing unless they have the licence of the Crown beforehand and the consent of the Crown afterwards, a Convocation which, without ever being suppressed, without ever having its formal meetings interrupted, could be practically suspended for a hundred and fifty years, has far more likeness to one of these Greek assemblies than can be found in a local body whose powers are narrowly defined, but which can freely exercise such powers as it has. We have another parallel in the Chapter electing its Bishop, electing him freely according to all outward look, but whose choice not only needs the approval of the Crown, but is actually dictated beforehand by the Crown, under heavy penalties if that dictation is not obeyed.[9] We read several chapters of Plutarch which might have been written for any Greek commonwealth in days before either the later or the former Philip. Presently the mention of certain demagogues who corrupted the people by shows of gladiators is a sign that the Roman has entered into the Greek world.[10] But, for anything in that or in several following chapters, the commonwealths so corrupted might have been as independent as when earlier demagogues were said to have corrupted their countrymen by allurements of other kinds. We go on further, and the full truth comes out. The Greek commonwealths of Plutarch’s day had no longer anything to do with wars, with alliances, with putting down of tyrants, and some might think that in such a state of things there was no room for statesmanship left. Plutarch thought otherwise; there were still public trials at home; there were embassies to be sent to the Emperor; there were dealings with Roman governors, possibly with bad governors. These things needed some qualifications; energy, daring, discretion, were all needed by those who had to plead for the weak before the powerful.[11] The chosen magistrate was not to despise his office because he had not so free a field as the magistrates of old times; but he was never to forget the difference between him and them. Periklês might say that he was called to rule among freemen, among Greeks, among Athenians. The magistrate of Plutarch’s day was to remember that he ruled with a ruler over him; that his city was in subjection to the proconsuls of Rome, to the procurators of Cæsar.[12] War was impossible; of freedom they had as much as their masters left to them, as much perhaps as was good for them[13] when Greece was so weak, when there was no power left in her which the slightest bidding of a proconsul could not upset.[14] In such times public men must be careful to give no offence, no occasion, to dangerous neighbours; they must above all avoid such occasion as was given by disputes at home or with other cities. At the same time, while fully understanding their dependent position, they must avoid base cringing and flattery; they must not make the governor yet more of a master than he is disposed to be by calling him in on all occasions;[15] and it will be wise to make some powerful Roman their friend.[16] They will do well to study the records of old Greece, but only for examples suited to the actual state of things; tall talk about Marathôn and Plataia and Eurymedôn should be left to the rhetoric of the schools; but peaceful examples from earlier times, examples of courtesy, humanity, and good faith, were as instructive then as they ever had been.[17]

[8] His Πολιτικὰ Παραγγέλματα, commonly quoted as _Reipublicæ
Gerendæ Præcepta_.

[9] A still closer parallel might have been found up to the
present reign, as long as the Deans of the churches of the Old
Foundation were chosen by the Chapters. By long-standing custom a
nominee of the Crown was always chosen, though there was not, as
in the case of the election of Bishops, any legal obligation so
to do.

[10] C. 5. ἢ τοῦ βαλανείου διδόντες ἢ πυῤῥίχας τινας ἢ μονομάχων
θεάματα παρασκευάζοντες ἀεὶ δημαγωγοῦσι, μᾶλλον δὲ δημοκοποῦσι.

[11] C. 10.

[12] C. 17. ἀρχόμενος ἄρχεις, ὑποτεταγμένης πόλεως ἀνθυπάτοις,
ἐπιτρόποις Καίσαρος.

[13] C. 32. ἐλευθερίας δὲ ὅσον οἱ κρατοῦντες νέμουσι τοῖς δήμοις
μέτεστι, καὶ τὸ πλέον ἴσως οὐκ ἄμεινον.

[14] C. 32. ποία δύναμις ἣν μικρὸν ἀνθυπάτου διάταγμα κατέλυσεν ἣ
μετέστησεν εἰς ἄλλο.

[15] C. 19. οἱ πάντι δόγματι καὶ συνεδρίῳ καὶ χάριτι καὶ
διοικήσει προσάγοντες ἡγεμονικὴν κρίσιν ἀναγκάζουσι ἑαυτῶν μᾶλλον
ἢ βούλονται δεσπότας εἶναι τοὺς ἡγουμένους.

[16] C. 18.

[17] C. 17.

The precepts of Plutarch are perfectly general. He draws no distinction between the different classes of cities, according to the greater or less degree of independence which they still formally kept. For in truth they were all practically in the same case; all had, in his own phrase, the shoe of the Roman over their heads.[18] The provincial town could act freely in many things, if the governor did not choose to meddle; the independent ally could not act freely in any thing, if the governor did choose to meddle. We find things on the whole the same when we turn from the philosopher giving wise precepts in his study to the orator actually haranguing the assemblies whose duties Plutarch so carefully lays down. Diôn Chrysostom is a rhetorician by profession, and he has the faults of his profession; but there is much that is attractive about the man and his writings, and he gives us several instructive pictures of Greek life in his own day. His orations on subjects of theoretical politics, on kingship, aristocracy, democracy, and the like, sound a little unpractical under the universal rule of Rome; but we must remember that it mattered a good deal whether the reigning prince was Domitian or Trajan. We gain real additions to our knowledge from the picture of the Euboian hunter, possessed of the civic franchise but who had never been in the city, and we learn better what an Euboian city was like in Diôn’s day.[19] More interesting still is his picture of the Greek city of Olbia or Borysthenês, still clinging to its Greek speech and manners amid the constant attacks of dangerous barbarian neighbours.[20] Of more importance for our purpose is his oration to the Rhodians, an oration of good advice, but of course largely mingled with panegyric on his hearers and their city. This is a document of deep interest, if read by the light of the history of that illustrious island in the second century before Christ. Rhodes is throughout addressed as a free commonwealth, as a democracy;[21] it is the one Greek state besides Athens which keeps its freedom;[22] it is the only one which still cherishes the glory of the Hellenic name.[23] The relations of the state to Rome are nowhere dwelled upon after the manner of Plutarch; Emperors are several times casually mentioned, but not as masters;[24] the point of connexion between Rhodes and Rome of which the orator is most inclined to speak is the part played by the Rhodians in the Roman civil war.[25] He knows of no break between the mighty Rhodes of an earlier day and the still flourishing democracy which he harangues. Some of his sayings could hardly have been approved by Plutarch; they are too much in the Marathôn and Eurymedôn style; but they could not, even as flourishes, have been addressed to a people who were not free, at least in theory, however precarious might be the tenure by which their freedom was held.

[18] _Ibid._ ὁρῶτα τοὺς καλτίους ἐπάνω τῆς κεφαλῆς.

[19] Oration vii. Εὐβοϊκὸς ἢ Κυνηγός.

[20] Oration xxxvi. Βορυσθενικός.

[21] Oration xxxi. vol. i. p. 364, Dindorf. ταῦτα ἐν δημοκρατίᾳ
καὶ παρ' ὑμῖν, οἱ μέγιστον φρονεῖτε ἐπὶ τῷ νομίμως καὶ δικαίως
διοικεῖν τὰ παρ' ἑαυτοῖς.

[22] _Ibid._ p. 380. τοῖς μὲν γὰρ [Ῥοδίοις] μόνον ὑπάρχειν τὴν
ἐλευθερίαν δίχα Ἀθηναίων.

[23] _Ibid._ p. 350. τῆς λοιπῆς Ἑλλάδος τρόπον τίνὰ ἐσβεσμένης
μόνους ἐφ' αὑτοῖς διαφυλάξαι τὸ κοινὸν ἀξίωμα τῶν Ἑλλήνων εἰς τὸν
νῦν παρόντα χρόνον. So p. 398; μόνοι καταλείπεσθε τῶν Ἑλλήνων οἷς
ἂν καὶ παραινέσαι τις καὶ περὶ ᾧ ἔστιν ἔτι λυπηθῆναι δοκούντων
ἁμαρτάνειν.

[24] _Ibid._ pp. 359, 380, 381, 387, 393.

[25] _Ibid._ pp. 367, 383.

Less interesting in themselves than any of these, but perhaps in a certain way more instructive, are the speeches which Diôn makes in his own city of Prusa and in other towns of his native province. He had to preach peace and concord both to rival cities and to rival parties in the same city, and also to plead his own cause against his own enemies.[26] The assemblies which he addresses are always assumed to be self-acting bodies; references to the existence of Rome come in only casually, and Diôn does not often copy the plain-speaking of Plutarch.[27] But the speeches of the Greek orator put on a tenfold interest when we come to compare them with the memorable correspondence which is luckily preserved to us between a Roman Emperor and a proconsul of Bithynia in Diôn’s own day. The letters which passed between Trajan and Pliny seem at first sight to describe a wholly different state of things from that which appears in the speeches of Diôn. If we compare the two, we shall see that they set before us two opposite sides of the same state of things. From the two together we shall get a clear notion of the state of the various cities of Bithynia, and of the different relations in which, like those of any other province, they stood to the ruling power. Speeches and letters together illustrate the show of freedom which existed in perhaps every case, the reality of freedom which existed in some cases, and at the same time the precarious tenure by which both the shadow and the reality were held. We see the ordinary provincial town, still keeping the style of “res publica,” passing “psephismata,” sending “legati” to the Emperor and the neighbouring governors, playing in short at being a commonwealth, but not venturing to do any local act of the least importance without consulting the Emperor’s representative. Diôn brings out one side, Trajan and Pliny bring out the other side; that is all. Diôn makes a speech to the people of Nikomêdeia, exhorting them to peace and harmony with the people of Nikaia. Many passages would have been in place in the mouth of a mediator between Athens and Sparta five hundred years earlier. There is no direct mention of any superior authority as bearing rule over both; the orator indeed tells his hearers that after all they cannot make war on their enemies,[28] and warns them lest by their dissensions they make the Greek name ridiculous among the Romans.[29] We are for the moment amazed when we turn from this picture of two seemingly independent commonwealths to the letters which show how the Emperor and his representative had to be consulted by Nikomêdeia, Nikaia, and every other city, about the smallest municipal regulations, about every kind of local improvement.[30] It is an odd comment on the dissensions between city and city of which Diôn speaks, when Trajan, remembering how Nikomêdeia and other cities had been torn by seditions, will not allow the creation of a company of firemen, lest it be turned to some dangerous political purpose.[31] We again feel sure that Pliny, in his zeal, meddled in many matters which a worse proconsul would have left alone, and that, in his desire to do right, he referred many things to the Emperor which such a proconsul would have settled for himself in a high-handed way. Reading speeches and letters together, we better understand both. We are dealing with commonwealths, but with commonwealths acting in fetters. They do everything for themselves by votes of their own assemblies. But those votes need a licence beforehand, a confirmation afterwards, or both the one and the other, from the overruling power that stands without.[32]

[26] See the forty-third and forty-fourth orations.

[27] Once perhaps in the home orations, xliv. (vol. ii. p. 117);
εὖ γὰρ ἴστε ὅτι τὴν μὲν λεγομένην ἐλευθερίαν, καὶ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦθ',
ὃ παρὰ τῶν κρατούντων καὶ δυναμένων γίγνεται ἐνιότε οὐ δυνατὸν
κτήσασθαι.

[28] Oration xxxviii. Πρὸς Νικομηδεῖς περὶ ὁμονοίας τῆς πρὸς
Νικαιεῖς. vol. ii. pp. 74, 75, 76.

[29] _Ibid._ p. 80.

[30] Epp. Plini et Trajani, 31, 33, 34, 37, 39, 40, 41, 48, 49,
70, 71, 74, 81, 90.

[31] Ep. 34. “Tibi quidem secundum exempla complurium in mentem
venit posse collegium fabrorum apud Nicomedenses constitui. Sed
meminerimus provinciam istam et præcipue eas civitates ejusmodi
factionibus esse vexatas. Quodcumque nomen ex quacumque causa
dederimus iis qui in idem contracti fuerint ... hetæriæque fient.”

[32] In Ep. 81 there are references to Diôn himself. He was a
Roman citizen.

Both Nikomêdeia and Nikaia, and Diôn’s own city of Prusa, were only ordinary provincial towns with no special privilege. But there were spots in Bithynia which were more highly favoured. Here, as elsewhere, the Roman colony, the free and allied city, were locally in the province, but not of it. It is plain that even cities of this rank were used to a good deal of meddling on the part of the Roman officers; but they resented such treatment and appealed to their privileges. Apameia was no provincial town, but a Roman colony. Diôn, who claimed to be one of its citizens, made a speech before its senate, in which he sets forth the dignity of its colonial character.[33] Pliny, more busy than other proconsuls, claimed to look over the accounts of the colony. The colonists told him that he was welcome to do so, that it was their common wish that he should do so. But he should remember that it was a thing which no proconsul had ever asked before; their ancient privileges gave them the right of managing their own commonwealth as they thought good. Pliny asks for and receives a statement of their case in writing. He thinks much of the paper irrelevant; but he sends it to the Emperor to be guided by his judgement. In all this correspondence one somehow thinks of the correspondence of Augustine and Gregory; the superior is so clearly the wiser man of the two. Trajan writes back that the straightforward dealing of the men of Apameia is to be respected; the proconsul is to tell them that it is by the Emperor’s special request that he asks to look at their accounts; he is to do so without any prejudice to their privileges for the future.[34] We here see plainly enough the difference inherent in the position of a Roman colony as distinguished from that of an ordinary town of the province. Still an Emperor and a proconsul less scrupulous than Trajan and Pliny might have made short work of the liberties of Apameia. Under the men with whom the colonists had actually to deal, those liberties, when once established by sufficient evidence, were safe.

[33] Oration xli. vol. ii. pp. 103, 105.

[34] Plin. et Traj. Epist. 47, 48 (56, 57). The claim of the
colony is “habuisse privilegium et vetustissimum morem arbitrio
suo rem publicam administrare.” The Emperor’s answer is,
“Remuneranda est igitur probitas eorum, et jam nunc sciant quod
inspecturus es ex mea voluntate salvis, quæ habent privilegiis
esse facturum.”

But within the geographical limits of Bithynia there was something yet higher than a Roman colony. Amisos was an independent state surrounded by Roman territory. The city had in past times seen many settlers and many masters; it was at last delivered from its oppressors by Augustus Cæsar, and it became a free ally of Rome, bound to Rome only by the terms of its treaty.[35] We know not what those terms were; they may, like treaties with Gades and Aitôlia, have formally bound Amisos to respect the majesty of Rome, or they may not. That difference mattered little to a commonwealth whose geographical position compelled it in any case practically to respect that majesty. But it mattered greatly that, within its own walls, Amisos was by right perfectly free, governed by its own laws, which might or might not agree with the laws of Rome. Still it is plain that its treaty rights could not always secure the commonwealth from the meddling of Roman proconsuls. And it again marks the difference between the servant and the master that Pliny speaks of the liberties of Amisos as existing by the indulgence of Trajan, while Trajan himself grounds them directly on the faith of treaties. The proconsul asks if an _eranos_, a benefit club, is to be allowed in Amisos. Such a question marks the way in which the rights even of a perfectly free city were liable to be interfered with. Trajan, as we have seen in the case of the Nikomêdeian firemen, had a great dislike to unions and societies of any kind which might possibly be turned to political ends. No _eranos_ is to be allowed in any city that is subject to the laws of Rome. But at Amisos, a city ruled by its own laws, Pliny is not to interfere with the establishment of such a body. The way in which the great Emperor speaks is remarkable. The might of Cæsar stands disarmed before the majesty of treaties. Trajan carries out a certain policy wherever he has the legal right to do so; where he has no such right, he forbears. Yet his words seem to imply that even he, the just Emperor, might have interfered with the rights of the free commonwealth, had he seen really good cause for doing so.[36] What other Emperors and other proconsuls did, with or without cause, it is easy to guess.

[35] See its own citizen Strabo, xii. 3 (iii. 24 Tauchnitz). The
Dictator Cæsar delivered it from Pharnakês; Antonius παρέδωκε
βασιλεῦσι, εἶτ' ἠλευθερώθη πάλιν μετὰ τὰ Ἀκτιακὰ ὑπὸ Καίσαρος
τοῦ Σεβάστου καὶ νῦν εὖ συνέστηκεν. Pliny (92 or 93) says,
“Amisenorum civitas libera et fœderata beneficio indulgentiæ
tuæ legibus suis utitur.” Trajan answers, “Si legibus istorum
quibus de officio fœderis utuntur concessum est eranon habere,”
&c. “In cæteris civitatibus, quæ nostro jure obstrictæ sunt, res
hujusmodi prohibenda est.” There is another mention of Amisos in
Letter 110, which reads rather like sharp practice on the part of
the free and allied city, its _boule_ and _ecclesia_.

[36] “Possumus quo minus habeant non impedire, eo facilius si
tali conlatione non ad turbas et ad inlicitos cœtus, sed ad
sustinendam tenuiorum inopam utuntur.”

It is not at all wonderful if most of the business done by the assemblies of these commonwealths had to do with religious and social matters, and again with formal and trifling matters, with votes of honours, statues, and the like. As Diôn several times tells them implicitly, as Plutarch tells them more directly, the decision of greater matters had passed into other hands. The point is that these cities still kept the form of commonwealths, commonwealths that must have passed most of their lives in fear and trembling, but still commonwealths, even if in fetters, not mere municipalities, such as we are used to in our own day. In Eastern Europe and Western Asia this state of things is the direct and necessary consequence of the events of the Polybian age. The history of the Roman power in Western Europe is a wholly distinct subject. There Rome did not enslave or destroy, but created. The towns of the West looked forward, while the Greek commonwealths looked backward. The gradual extinction of these last was the necessary consequence of later changes, of changes which followed on the centralizing and despotic tendencies of the later Empire. Much of local independence had vanished between Strabo’s day and Pliny’s; the Lykian League itself was a thing of the past when Trajan respected the privileges of Amisos. How late any traces of freedom lingered we need not here inquire. My present object is to show the long abiding effects of the peculiar process by which the Roman dominion was definitely formed in that great determining period of the world’s history which is marked by the second century before Christ.

INDEX.

A.

_Abyssinia_, Christianity of, 67.

_Achaia_, dealings of Rome with, 218.

_Ælfred_, his view of early Greek history, 18.

_Africa_, Saracen conquest of, 133.

_Agamemnôn_, his imperial position, 18, 19.

_Agathoklês_, two sides of, 33.

_Akarnania_, its position in Homeric times, 19;
becomes Greek, 24.

_Akragas_, its time of greatness, 25.

Ἀλαμανῶν ῥήξ, title of, 107.

_Alans_, their history and settlement, 87, 88; 122.

_Alaric_, his career, 78.

_Albanians_, their origin, 119.

Ἀλβανοί, opposed to Ῥωμαῖοι, 141.

_Alexander_, founder of the modern Greek nation, 16;
his work in the East, 17;
his dealings with the Greek cities, 179.

_Alexander of Epeiros_, 17;
his designs, 34.

_Alexandria_, its relation to older Greek cities, 23.

_Alexios Komnênos_, compared with Henry the Fourth, 162.

_Allies_, Roman, their relations to Rome, 82, 83; 218-220;
their slow incorporation, 84, 85; 219-221.

_Ambrakia_, its beginnings, 24.

_Amisos_, dealings of Trajan and Pliny with, 237, 238.

_Amphiktyonic Council_, nullity of, 178, 179;
its reform by Augustus, 225.

_Andorra_, relations of, 217.

_Angles_, first mentioned, 64.

_Antalkidas_, Peace of, 28.

_Antioch_, its relation to older Greek cities, 23.

_Antoninus Caracalla_, effects of his edict, 42.

_Apameia_, dealings of Trajan and Pliny with, 236, 237.

_Aquæ Sextiæ_, battle of, 44; 60.

_Aquitaine_, position of cities in, 192;
its relations to France, 195;
its separation from Burgundy, 196.

_Arles_, capital of Southern Gaul, 85.

_Arminius_, his historic position, 64.

_Arnold_, Thomas, point chosen by for the ending of his History, 104.

_Asia Minor_, its historic position, 19.

_Athens_, her history mistaken for that of Greece, 21;
remains specially pagan, 74;
her relations to Rome, 84, 85;
her position under Trajan, 232.

_Aurelian_, his dealings with the Goths, 77.

_Austria_, the Frankish, effect of the rise of its Mayors, 91.

_Austrian Emperors_, their relations to the Popes, 183.

_Austrian Empire_, 151-152.

_Avignon_, Popes at, 157.

B.

_Bajazet_, Keiser of Roum, 145.

_Barbarians_, conversion of, 67.

_Basil the Macedonian_, his controversy with Lewis the Second, 108.

_Basil the Second_, Emperor, 132, 133.

Βασιλεύς, title of, 108.

_Basques_, Iberian elements preserved by, 93.

_Belisarius_, Roman consul, 125.

_Beneventum_, battle of, 45.

_Bithynia_, different position of its cities under Trajan, 233-238.

_Britain_, Roman influence in, 94;
Continental, its origin, 89;
Celtic elements preserved in, 93.

_Buonaparte_, Napoleon, his position and objects, 149-151.

_Burgundians_, their settlement in Gaul, 89; 123.

_Burgundy_, position of cities in, 191, 192;
its separation from Aquitaine, 196;
represented by Switzerland, 197, 198.

_Byzantine_, use of the name, 129.

C.

_Cæsar_, his work in Gaul, 61, 65.

_Capitular elections_, their analogy with Greek cities, 228.

_Carthage_, her beginnings, 24;
the rival of Greece, 29;
her wars in Sicily, 30;
her rivalry and first war with Rome, 46, 47;
strife of with Rome for Spain, 48, 49;
her fall and new birth, 54.

_Catalaunian Fields_, battle of, 44.

_Catalogue_, the Homeric, its historic value, 18-20.

_Charles Martel_, his defeat of the Saracens, 134.

_Charles the Great_, effect of his coronation, 104;
nature of his Empire, 106, 107;
successor of Constantine the Sixth, 106;
his position towards the East, 107, 108;
his successors, 130.

_Charles the Fourth_, Emperor, his coronations, 147.

_Charles the Fifth_, last _Imperator_, 138;
his coronation at Bologna, ib.;
real source of his power, 139.

_Charles the Sixth_, Emperor, 152.

_Cherson_, its beginnings, 24;
its relations to Rome, 84;
Roman annexation of, 221-222.

_Chlodowig_, unites the Frankish kingdoms, 189.

_Christianity_, its relation to the Roman power, 67-69;
its special rivalry with Mahometanism, 133.

_Cities_, answer to nations, 177, 178; 183;
contrasted with nations, 186-188;
their chief developement among Southern nations, 186;
difficulty of uniting, 187;
their position in Northern and Southern Gaul, 191, 192;
their history and position in modern Europe, 199-205;
their history in Germany, 200-205;
suppression of, 201-202.

_Civilis_, compared with Buonaparte, 151.

_Clermont_, Council of, 162.

_Colonies_, Greek, 14;
their relation to Macedonian conquests, 16;
their beginnings, 19;
their time of greatness, 23-26;
their extent, 24-26.

Condominium, survival of, 211.

_Conquest_, Roman and Teutonic compared, 85.

_Constance_, Peace of, compared with that of Westfalia, 139.

_Constantine the Great_, his changes at Rome, 74;
his foundation of Constantinople, ib.

_Constantine Palaiologos_, his death, 170;
compared with Leopold the First, 171.

_Constantinople_, its various names, 74;
Christian from the beginning, ib.;
its position compared with that of old Rome, 100-103;
never without a resident Emperor, 101;
its loss in 1204, 139;
its recovery, 142;
Latin Empire at, 145;
its position, 160;
taking of, May 29, 1453, 168-170;
Latin rites in Saint Sophia, 170.

_Convocation_, English, its analogy with Greek cities, 227, 228.

_Crete_, mention of in Homer, 19.

_Crusade_, _First_, 161, 162.

_Crusade_, _Fourth_, 164, 165.

_Cyprus_, rivalry of Greek and Phœnician in, 24;
Empire of, 143;
conquered by Richard, ib.

D.

_Dacia_, its conquest and cession, 77.

_Dante_, his doctrine of the Empire, 68;
his theory carried out in the East, 159.

_Departments_, French, their position, 210.

_Diocletian_, his changes, 73, 74; 86.

_Diôn Chrysostom_, his account of contemporary Greek commonwealths, 225-234;
value of his Orations, 231;
his speech to the Rhodians, 232;
his speech at Prusa, 233;
at Nikomêdeia, 234.

_Dionysios_, two sides of, 33.

_Diplomacy_, in the third century B.C., 37.

E.

_East_, growth of native powers in, in the first and second centuries B.C., 65.

_Eastern Emperors_, their religious character, 159.

_Eastern Empire_, in what sense Greek, 112-120;
in what sense Roman, 117-119;
its power of revival, 128;
use of the name, 129;
its calling, 130;
its wars with the Saracens, 135;
with the Turks, ib.;
practically ends in 1204, 136; 139-144;
its survival and fragments, 145;
its greatest days, 160;
its crusades, ib., 161.

_Eastern Question_, eternal, 5.

_Egypt_, early Greek knowledge of, 20;
its relations to Greece, 26;
Saracen conquest of, 133.

_Eleventh Century A.D._, its history, 135.

Ἕλλην, use of the name, 112; 140.

Empereur d’Allemagne et d’Autriche, title of, 149.

Empereur des Français, title of, 149.

_Emperor_, various uses of the name, 144.

_Emperor of the East_, title of, 143, 144.

_Emperors_, joint reign of several, 75;
pre-eminence of those in the East, ib.;
rival claims of in East and West, 107, 108;
contrast of in East and West, 120, 121;
origin of their power, 212-214.

_Empire_, vague uses of the word, 155.

_Empire_, Eastern, _see_ Eastern Empire.

_Empire_, Roman, _see_ Roman Empire.

_Empire_, Western, _see_ Western Empire.

_Empires_, various Greek, in the fourteenth century, 143, 144.

_England_, its steps towards union, 188.

_Epeiros_, its relations to Greece, 13, 14; 25;
plans of her kings in the West, 34;
suggested by the Macedonian conquests, ib.;
Empire of, 143.

Erbkaiser von Oesterreich, title of, 151.

_Euboia_, account of by Diôn Chrysostom, 231.

_Europe_, three marked periods in its history, 4;
its geographical character, 6;
its analogies in the earliest and latest times, 176.

F.

_Federal States_, examples of in the third century B.C., 36.

_Federations_, their long survivals in Greece, 225.

_Fifth Century A.D._, its character and relation to earlier times, 79;
compared with the third century B.C., 81;
sketch of its history, 122-124.

_Fifth Century B.C._, a time of Greek decline, 21;
its effect on the Teutonic nations, 85-95.

_Finlay_, George, his view of the fifth century B.C., 21.

_France_, formation of, 91, 92;
its growth, 190-192;
position of cities in, 191.

_France_, Duchy of, its dismemberment, 190.

Francia, name of, 89;
divisions of, 91.

_Frankfurt_, its commonwealth suppressed, 202.

_Franks_, their appearance in Gaul, 78;
translation of the Empire to, 112;
their advance in Gaul, 123;
union of their kingdoms, 189;
fourfold division of, 196.

_Frederick the Second_, Emperor, his crusade, 163;
effects of his treatment by the Popes, ib.

_Frederick the Third_, Emperor, 138; 147.

_Free Cities_, hindrances to national growth, 193.

_French Empire_, 149-151.

_French language_, its formation, 190.

_French nation_, its origin, 91, 92;
its formation, 190-192.

G.

_Gascons_, _see_ Basques.

_Gaul_, Cisalpine, Roman conquest of, 49;
its Roman life, 61, 62;
Teutonic settlements in, 87;
how affected by the Teutonic invasions, 90, 91;
Southern, Romance growth in, 91;
its disunion, 189;
national elements in, 195-197.

_Gauls_, their relation to Rome, 86;
their adoption of the Roman name, 87.

_Gela_, its time of greatness, 25.

_George Maniakês_, his recovery of Syracuse, 135.

_German_, use of the name, 113.

_German Empire_, 153.

_Germans_, their invasions, 77;
their relation to the Empire, ib.

_Germany_, its connexion with the Western Empire, 147;
its disunion, 189;
less divided than Italy, 193;
position of cities in, 200-205.

_Ghibelline theory_, carried out in the East, 159.

_Gibbon_, Edward, extent of his history, 75.

Gothia, name of, 88.

_Goths_, their dealings with the Empire, 77-79;
their settlement in Gaul, 89;
their taking of Rome, 95;
their position in East and West, 99;
their settlement in Gaul and Spain, 123.

Græci, use of the name, 112.

_Gratian_, refuses the Pagan pontificate, 155.

_Greece_, its geographical character, 6;
its historic calling, 7;
its connexion with other Aryan lands, 7, 8;
its influence compared with that of Rome, 8-10;
its position towards the East, 11, 12;
its relations to Rome, 15;
various forms of its influence, 16;
its geographical boundary, 17;
two main periods of its influence, 21, 22;
its decline in the fourth century B.C., 32;
its influence in East and West, 34;
relations of Rome to, after the first Macedonian war, 54, 55;
its influence extended by Rome, 92, 93;
international law in its oldest times, 178;
in Macedonian times, 179;
highest developement of cities in, 186;
survival of Federal systems in, 225;
its position under Trajan, 229.

_Greece_, Greater, 14;
falls away from Greek life, 17;
its most brilliant time, 25.

_Greek_, use of the name, 113;
in the sixth century, 126, 127;
in the thirteenth, 140, 141.

_Greek cities_, their position under the Roman Empire, 239;
gradual extinction of their freedom, 239, 240.

_Greek language_, its history in the Eastern Empire, 115-117.

_Greek nation_, modern, its origin, 16.

_Greek studies_, their value, 9, 10.

_Greeks_, their relations to other nations, 13;
their geographical position, 17, 18;
their relation to Rome, 86;
their adoption of the Roman name, ib.

_Gregory the Great_, his letter to Phocas, 125; 158.

_Gregory the Seventh_, his career and death, 156, 157.

H.

_Hadriatic Sea_, Western boundary of permanent Greek life, 17.

_Hamilkar_, his exploits and those of his House, 48.

_Hannibal_, his character and historic position, 50-53.

_Hannibalian war_, its character, 50-52.

_Hansa_, its growth, 201;
its decline, 202;
its modern survival, 202-204.

_Henry the Fourth_, Emperor, his position at the time of the First Crusade, 162.

_Henry the Seventh_, Emperor, 132; 147.

_Heraclius_, his exploits, 129; 133.

_Herodotus_, his clear view of history, 18; 21.

_Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation_, 95; 111; 112.

_Homer_, his historic witness, 18-20.

I.

Imperator _and_ Imperator electus, 111.

_Imperial power_, its original nature, 69;
its slow growth, 73, 74.

_Innocent the Third_, his relation to the Fourth Crusade, 165.

_International law_, times of its importance, 177-180;
its difficulty, 177;
ceases under the Roman power, 180.

_Italy_, relations of its nations to the Greek cities, 31;
help for its cities sought in Greece, 32-34;
how affected by the Teutonic invasions, 90, 91;
its position under Theodoric, 97, 98;
reconquered by the Empire, 98;
divided between the Empire and the Lombards, ib.;
southern part remains Greek, ib.;
developement of cities in, 186;
its disunion, 189; 193;
position of cities in, 191;
its reunion, 193-195;
its drawbacks, 194.

J.

_Janissaries_, 167.

_Jerusalem_, recovered by Frederick the Second, 163.

_Jews_, revival of their power under the Maccabees, 66;
their mission in the world, ib.

_John Sobieski_, Vienna delivered by, 171.

_Joseph the Second_, Emperor, 152.

_Justinian_, closes the University of Athens, 85;
his historic position, 126-128.

K.

_Kingship_, various forms of in the Polybian age, 36.

_Korkyra_, its position in Homeric times, 20;
becomes Greek, 24.

_Kyrênê_, colonization of, 24.

L.

_Latin language_, its history in the Eastern Empire, 114-117.

Λατῖνοι, opposed to Ῥωμαῖοι, 141.

_Lectures_, scheme of, 204-206;
given in America, 205.

_Leo the Isaurian_, beats back the Saracens, 134.

_Leopold the First_, Emperor, compared with Constantine Palaiologos, 171.

_Lesbos_, mention of in Homer, 19.

_Lewis the Second_, Emperor, his controversy with Basil the Macedonian, 108;
his position in Italy, 130, 131.

_Lignitz_, defeat of the Mongols at, 161.

_Lübeck_, its coinage, 202.

_Lykia_, League of, 37;
its history and constitution, 222, 223.

M.

_Macedonia_, its relations to Greece, 14.

_Macedonian Conquests_, effects of, 14, 15.

_Macedonian Emperors_, their work, 132, 133.

_Macedonian Wars_, character of the First, 51, 52.

_Magyars_, effects of their settlement and conversion, 94.

_Mahomet the Second_, his European position, 167.

_Mahometan history_, its date, 11.

_Mahometanism_, its special rivalry with Christianity, 133.

_Marcus_, his reign, 76.

_Maria Theresa_, 152.

_Marius_, Gaius, his work, 60.

_Massalia_, its time of greatness, 25;
its two republican periods, 192.

_Maximilian_, Imperator electus, 138;
his tomb, 147.

_Merwings_, end of, 158.

_Milêtos_, mention of in Homer, 19.

_Mogul Empire_, 150.

_Mykênê_, Empire of, 18.

N.

_Nations_, answer to cities, 177, 178; 183;
definition of, 192, 193.

_Nikaia_, Sultans of, 135, 144, 145;
Emperors of, 140;
their recovery of Constantinople, 142;
its position under Trajan, 234, 235.

_Nikêphoros_, Emperor, acknowledges the claim of Charles the Great, 108.

_Nikomêdeia_, its position under Trajan, 234, 235.

_Normandy_, settlement of, 190.

O.

_Odowakar_, his position and history, 96.

_Odysseus_, his relation to his overlord, 18.

_Olbia_, Diôn Chrysostom’s account of, 231.

_Olympiad_, First, a starting-point, 10, 11.

_Otto the Great_, Emperor, 131.

_Otto the Third_, Emperor, 131.

_Ottoman Turks_, their advance in Asia and Europe, 165-168.

P.

_Palaiologoi_, their Empire a survival of the old Empire, 142;
their recovery of Peloponnêsos, ib.

_Panormos_, Phœnician colony, 24.

_Paris_, the centre of France, 191.

_Parthia_, Greek influence on, 15;
its relations to Rome, 62.

_Patricians_, Teutonic, 105.

_Peloponnêsos_, recovered by the Palaiologoi, 142.

_Pergamon_, the model kingdom, 37;
its relations to Rome, 56;
dealings of Rome with, 218.

_Persia_, its historic position, 27-29;
its alliance with Carthage, 30;
its new birth and rivalry with Rome, 63.

_Persian Wars_, their nature, 21.

_Philip_, how looked on at Megalopolis, 32.

_Philip the Fifth_, his failure to help Hannibal, 51, 54.

_Phœnicia_, its history and relation to Greece, 12; 20;
extent of its colonization, 24; 26;
its older and newer cities, 29.

_Physical inventions_, their political effect, 183-185.

_Pippin_, Patrician, 105;
recovers Septimania from the Saracens, 134;
his unction, 158.

_Pliny_, his correspondence with Trajan, 225, 226; 233-239;
his dealings with Apameia, 236;
with Amisos, 237.

_Plutarch_, his account of contemporary Greek commonwealths, 225-230;
his political precepts, 227-230.

_Poland_, Vienna delivered by, 171;
share of the House of Austria in its partition, 172.

_Polybios_, preserves the non-Athenian tradition of Philip, 32;
character of his age, 35;
his experience compared with that of Thucydides, 35, 36.

_Pompeius Gnæus_, his work in the East, 61.

_Pontius Telesinus_, 61.

_Pontos_, Greek influence on, 15.

_Popes_, a survival of the Empire, 155;
origin and growth of their power, 156-158;
their encroachments in the East, 165; 170;
chosen from Italians only, 182;
their relations to the Austrian Emperors, 183.

_Pragmatic Sanction_, 152.

_Pressburg_, Treaty of, 149.

_Protected states_, their position, 224.

_Provence_, its commonwealth, 192.

_Provinces_, slow annexation of, 72, 73;
position of different towns in, 215-216.

_Prusa_, speech of Diôn Chrysostom at, 232.

_Punic Wars_, an episode in European history, 49, 50.

_Pyrrhos_, his Hellenic position, 14; 17;
his designs, 34;
effects of his war with Rome, 45.

R.

_Ragusa_, its commonwealth suppressed, 203.

_Ravenna_, Emperors at, 157.

Respublica, use of the word, 125.

Rex Græciæ, Eastern Emperor so called, 108, 109.

_Rhodes_, mention of in Homer, 19;
democracy of, 36;
dealings of Rome with, 218;
speech of Diôn Chrysostom at, 231, 232.

_Roger_, Count, his recovery of Sicily, 135.

_Roman_, use of the name, 43.

_Roman Church_, its boundaries, 181, 182.

_Roman Empire_, when did its decline begin? 75;
its extension, 76;
effect of the fifth century on, 79;
its traditions kept on in the East, 79, 80;
relations of its Eastern and Western divisions, 79-81;
its enlargement under Charles, 105; 109, 110;
its nature under Charles, 106, 107;
its final division in 800, 108, 109;
parted from the Roman nation, 110, 111;
translation of, 112-114;
its extent in the fifth century, 122;
its reconquest in the sixth century, 124-126;
advance of centralization in, 211;
change from republic to empire, 212-214.

_Roman kingdom_, in Gaul, 123.