ON THE DOWNFALL OF ROME.
THE destruction, as a world-Power, of the Roman Empire in the fifth century of our era offers a theme of never- ending interest. The worst evil against which the Roman Empire had to contend was its dwindling population. The real strength of any State consists in its human element, and during the greater part of its existence that element was, in the Roman .Empire, wasting away. As early as 150 B.C. the evil was already apparent, and thinking men saw with alarm the rapid decline in the sturdy yeoman class of Italy. It is evident that in a society whose normal condition was, as in ancient Italy, one of intermittent war, and in which every landholder was liable to military service, the lame proprietor, who, when absent in the field, could cultivate his land by slave or hired labour, had an immense advantage over the small holder, and in the natural course of events the latter was almost inevitably ruined or evicted from his farm. The dispossessed farmers, for the most part, flocked into Rome, where they formed a vast pauper class living to all intents and purposes on the interested alms of the oligarchs. The disappearance to a great extent of this hardy class of freemen was in itself a terrible blow to the health of the State, but the consequences were even worse. Lithe first place, the great landholders naturally employed slave in preference to free labour as immediately cheaper, and, since it was unprofitable to train skilled hands to grow corn against the competition of Africa and Egypt, they preferred grazing to agriculture. By the first century B.C. much of Italy was desert, occupied only by vast grazing farms tended by half-wild, half-starved, wholly dangerous slave herdsmen. There was no room for free labour. In the second place, the congregation of the evicted country population in the cities as practical paupers was productive of the worst results, both socially and politically.
Next, the prevalence of slavery led to a most appalling state of private immorality. Self-indulgence, a common human frailty at the best of times, was necessarily fostered by a, condition of things in which a man could indulge his passions without regard to honour or duty, and without fear of conse- quences ; and cruelty naturally followed in the train of self- indulgence. The savage Roman spectacles need no mention, but there were worse features than this in Roman society. Infanticide was fearfully common, and all these evils com- bined helped forward the depopulation of the provinces. There are those to-day who approve of the abolition of marriage. They might study to good purpose the social con- dition of Rome under the Empire. Nothing seems so certain as that an ill-observed or disregarded marriage law in civilised society has in the result disastrous consequences to the nation at large. Marriage implies the 'performance of duties; when these are forgotten the nuptial tie becomes a mockery ; the abolition of marriage to-day would lead in the end to a con- dition of things as bad as that which prevailed in the Mediterranean world in the days of Domitian.
So much for the evil effects of slavery. Under the Empire, in leed, there was after a time, owing to certain economic causes, a resuscitation of free labour; but the free labourer soon became involved in the toils of the caste system, which was the bane of Roman society, and in the third century he was already no better than a serf. The great plague of the reign of Marcus Aurelius was the real beginning of the end. The wastage of the population was terrible, and the " Great Anarchy" of the third century, with its wild chaos of civil war, barbarian ravages, and pestilence, prevented any recovery,—if, indeed, in the circumstances, hope of recovery there was. The brilliant municipal organisation of the early Empire was already in a state of decay, largely owing to its own inherent defects, and the legislation of Diocletian and Constantine completed its destruction and converted Roman society into a system of castes rigidly defined, controlled by an all-pervading bureaucracy, and ground down by taxation that grew ever more severe as time went on.
The local Senate—" curia "—was collectively responsible for the amount of the district taxes as fixed by the Imperial officials. If one or more of its members became bankrupt, the sum still had to be made up ; consequently the burden became more and more heavy, and in a society slowly growing poorer the results were most disastrous. The wretched curiales became no better than State slaves for the collection of taxes, and, in spite of all efforts to check the evil, their condition at last was so miserable that they literally fled from their crushing responsibilities. Anything was better than to be a curial : there is good reason to believe that some of the fugitives even preferred serfdom to their official slavery.
The curiales, be -it noted, were landowners, but not great landowners of noble or senatorial rank; they represented in some sense the middle class of the Empire. Above them were a few great nobles; below them the only class really free was that of the merchants and tradesmen; the agricultural labourers were all either serfs or slaves. Even as it was, the curia, being composed of the richest land- owners of the district, was not identified in its interests with the smaller proprietors and the traders. Probably the small holders disappeared first; but at last the curiales, as afore- said, disintegrated under the ruthless pressure. By the days of Valentinian III. the middle classes of the Empire had dis- appeared ; there remained but the great landowners and their slaves. The state of things may be inferred from the fact that while all beneath them were reduced to beggary, the incomes of the great nobles averaged about £60,000 per annum, and were not seldom as high as £200,000. It is indeed clear that the nobles of the Roman Empire, like those of other States at different periods of their history, evaded their obligations as much as possible; in any case, they had the best chance of survival.
The Land-tax varied from a twentieth to a fifth of the value of the annual production ; usually it was about a tenth,— obviously a heavy burden. All freemen not landholders were liable to a heavy Capitation-tax. Constantine imposed a Class-tax on Senators, and a tax on all receipts, which neces- sarily pressed with cruel force on the poor, and was repealed by Anastasius I. amid general rejoicings. (The writer believes that a tax of this description has been advocated in Great Britain of late years.)
Despite the fearful burden of the taxes, matters might have been better had the public revenue been employed for useful purposes only. But under Aurelian a, stately Court with its throng of officials was established ; Diocletian and Constan- tine further elaborated the establishment. At a time when strict economy was absolutely necessary millions were squandered every year on the upkeep of the Imperial Court.
Even worse was the system of public doles. There is no need to go at length into their history. They were intro- duced by C. Gracchus with, probably, the deliberate intention of securing the support of the pauperised Roman proletariat for much-needed reforms. Gracchus may well have thought that means sanctify the end. As it was, the practice became a recognised part of Roman political machinery, and the establishment of the Empire involved also the free provision- ing of the capital. Nor was this all; other cities obtained the same privilege. When Constantinople was established as a second capital it received free food grants as a matter of course; and thus, at a time when the State needed every man and every minus, masses of privileged population were kept in a state of idle plenty at the expense of the already over. burdened provincial taxpayer. The evil practice was aggra. vated by the means employed to carry it out. Bounties were paid to grain importers, and immense sums were expended in maintaining the necessary horde of employees of all kinds engaged in the duty. The bulk of the population was
im-
poverished in order to maintain a part as paupers,—not worn. out soldiers of industry, but able-bodied men and their families. Nothing contributed more to the decline of the Roman Empire than this frightful abuse, for which no defence is possible. The principle of taxation was to transfer to the Imperial Treasury as much as possible of the wealth in circulation; other considerations were simply ignored. The natural con- sequence was a want of capital in the provinces and general disorganisation, since a decrease in the means of life naturally accelerated the already marked decline of the population. When it is added that the only means of repairing the ravages made by economic causes was by introducing colonies of barbarians, the rapid success of the Germanic hordes needs little explanation. To complete the picture it only remains to add that in order to avoid the slightest decrease in the revenue the taxpayers were strictly debarred from bearing arms, and the army, on which the defence of the exhausted Empire depended, was recruited largely from foreign barbarians, officered by their own chiefs.
On the whole, it would seem that political fatuity had well- nigh reached its limit when Theodosius I. enlisted in his service—at a high rate of pay, be it noted, thereby farther burdening the hapless taxpayer—the very Gothic war-bands with which he had been contending. In short, the decay of the Roman Imperial system was due in the first instance to the diseased state of its society, and in the second to economic conditions which were aggravated by maladminis- tration. The external causes were of comparatively slight importance; there is no reason to think that the barbarian invasions of the fifth century were more formidable than those of the third and fourth which had been successfully repelled.
How far do these conditions apply to society at the present day P Advanced material civilisation has brought self-indul- gence in its train ; there is far too much inclination to sub- ordinate the best interests of the community to the pursuit of pleasure, sometimes in vicious, and even brutal, forms. There is a very general lack of any adequate sense of responsibility, which seems to be growing rather than diminishing, and it was precisely the prevalence of this fault which led to the destruction of Roman free institutions. Politicians show a strong tendency to form a class apart, thereby helping to create a situation analogous to that under the Roman Empire, where there was no connexion, and in consequence no sympathy, between governors and governed.
Financial exhaustion, more than anything, contributed to the final ruin of the Imperial system in the West, and it is open to doubt whether the finances of Great Britain are being wisely administered by her party politicians. For many years past there have been charges of reckless waste and unwise methods of raising funds brought against all parties both in State and municipal politics, and in several instances they appear to have been well founded. While, on the one hand, taxation has become more severe, and the public obligations greatly increased, the methods of expenditure have been open to criticism. It is notorious that there is a body of extreme Socialistic opinion which would put the age-limit for a pension so low that its original object would be entirely frustrated, and, if history be of any value as a guide, there is no guarantee that this or that political party would not, for its own ends, play into the hands of such extremists. The natural result would be that the nation would, like the Roman Empire of old, be burdened with the maintenance of a huge mass of paupers. Such a measure would not benefit the honest worker, but rather that dangerous element of ruffianism which, for want of a better word, may be described as "unem- ployable," and which is always responsible for the worst features in any public disorder ; which was prominent in France alike in 1792 and 1871, and which furnished alike the bands of a Clodius and a Flourens, the apaches of Paris and the "hooligans " of London. Reckless measures of this nature were prominent in the French Revolution, and their natural result was widespread poverty and misery, and the throwing of all political power into the hands least fitted to hold it.
To sum up : what ruined Rome was not the barbarian invasion, but (1) a declining birth-rate and the dissolution of the marriage-tie ; (2) overwhelming taxation, especially on the land; (3) the introduction of a caste system through Government action; (4) the attempt of the State to act as a universal providence; (5) the endowment of idleness ; (6) the neglect of national defence by the refusal to train the popu- lation to arms and by reliance solely on a professional army. The lessons for us involved in this summary are in no need of special emphasis.
Previous page
