Year: 1870

Fault has been found with history, that
while it tells good deal about few
leading characters, it gives us very little
information about the masses of the peo-
pie. We thus get partial and often
perverted idea of the real life and spirit of
nation or a period. The history of Rome,
for instance, as it appears in most of the
books, is merely a succession of battle
pieces. War and conquest. and politics as
connected with war and conquest, make
up the bulk of it. The soldier and the
statesman are almost the only actors that
appear on the stage. We take it for
granted that there must have been Roman
tradesmen, and mechanics, and farmers,
for we cannot imagine how the rulers and
the warriors could get along without
them but we do not see that otherwise
they are of any Importance to the great
drama. Especially would 1t surprise
most persons to be told that agriculture
was recognized force IN Roman polity,
and that the farmer was made the direct
ally of the soldier in the work of con-
quest. This. however, is clearly shown by
Mommsen in his admirable History of
Rome" which is now made accessible to
American readers by Scribner & Co.'S
cheap but excellent reprint Of the English
translation. The following is paragraph
from the chapter on Agriculture, Trade
and Commerce" in the first volume


"The beautiful custom of com mencing
the formation of new cities by tracing a
furrOw with the plow along the line of the
future ring-wall shows how deeply rooted
was the feeling that every commonwealth
is dependent on agriculture. In the case
of Rome, in particular, the Servian reform
shows very clearly, not only that the ag-
ricultural class originally preponderated
in the state, but also that an effort was
made permanently to maintain the body
of freeholders as the pith and marrow of
the community. The whole policy of
Roman war and conquest rested, like the
constitution itself, on the basis of the
freehold system as the freeholder alone
was of value IN the state the aim of war
was to increase the number of its freehold
members. The vanquished community
was either compelled to merge entirely
into the yeomanry of Rome, or, if not re-
dueed to this extremity, it was required,
not to pay a war contribution or a fixed
tribute, but to cede portion usually
third part) of its domain, which was
thereupon equally occupied by Roman
farms Many nations have gained victo-
ries and made conquests as the Romans
did, but none has equalled the Roman in
thus making the ground he had won his
own by the sweat of his brow, and in Sc
curing by the plough-share what he had
gained by the lance. That which is gain
ed by war may be wrested from the grasp
by war again, but it is not so with con-
Quests made by the plough. While the
Romans lost many battles, they scarcely
ever, on making peace, ceded Roman soil
and for this result they were indebted to
the tenacity with which the farmers clung
to their fields and homesteads The
strength Of man and of the state lies in
their dominion over the soil the great
ness of Rome was built on the most ex-
tensive and immediate mastery of her
soil, and on the compact unity of the
body which thus acquired 50 firm ahold."
l-JoltT7loL of CheB1iStYY