University of Virginia Library

Search this document 
  
expand section 
  
expand section 
  

expand section1. 
expand section2. 
expand section3. 
expand section4. 
expand section5. 
expand section6. 
expand section7. 
expand section8. 
expand section9. 
expand section10. 
expand section11. 
collapse section12. 
 12.1. 
expand section12.2. 
expand section12.3. 
expand section12.4. 
expand section12.5. 
expand section12.6. 
expand section12.7. 
expand section12.8. 
expand section12.9. 
expand section12.10. 
expand section12.11. 
expand section12.12. 
expand section12.13. 
expand section12.14. 
expand section12.15. 
expand section12.16. 
expand section12.17. 
expand section12.18. 
expand section12.19. 
collapse section12.20. 
  
  
expand section12.21. 
 12.22. 
 12.23. 
expand section12.24. 
expand section12.25. 
expand section12.26. 
 12.27. 
 12.28. 
expand section12.29. 
expand section12.30. 
expand section13. 
expand section14. 
expand section15. 
expand section16. 
expand section17. 
expand section18. 
expand section19. 
expand section20. 
expand section21. 
expand section22. 
expand section23. 
expand section24. 
expand section25. 
expand section26. 
expand section27. 
expand section28. 
expand section29. 
expand section30. 
expand section31. 

21.14. 14. Of the Genius of the Romans with respect to Commerce.

The Romans were never distinguished by a jealousy for trade. They attacked Carthage as a rival, not as a commercial nation. They favoured trading cities that were not subject to them. Thus they increased the power of Marseilles by the cession of a large territory. They were vastly afraid of barbarians, but had not the least apprehension from a trading people. Their genius, their glory, their military education, and the very form of their government estranged them from commerce.

In the city, they were employed only about war, elections, factions, and law-suits; in the country, about agriculture; and as for the provinces, a severe and tyrannical government was incompatible with commerce.

But their political constitution was not more opposed to trade than their law of nations. "The people," says Pomponius, the civilian, [113] "with whom we have neither friendship, nor hospitality nor alliance, are not our enemies; however, if anything belonging to us falls into their hands, they are the proprietors of it; freemen become their slaves; and they are upon the same terms with respect to us."

Their civil law was not less oppressive. The law of Constantine, [114] after having stigmatised as bastards the children of a mean rank who had been married to those of a superior station, confounds women who retail merchandise with slaves, with the mistresses of taverns, with actresses, with the daughters of those who keep public stews, or who had been condemned to fight in the amphitheatre; this had its origin in the ancient institutions of the Romans.

I am not ignorant that men prepossessed with these two ideas (that commerce is of the greatest service to a state, and that the Romans had the best-regulated government in the world) have believed that these people greatly honoured and encouraged commerce; but the truth is, they seldom troubled their heads about it.

Footnotes

[113]

Leg. 5, 2, ff. De Captivis.

[114]

Quæ mercimoniis publice præfuit — Leg. 1, Cod. de natural. liberis.