ROME AND THRACE.

OF the relations between Rome and Thrace in the time of Tiberius, we have some account in the following passages of the Annals; II. 64-67 ; III. 38, 39; IV. 46-51.

Thrace had been a region of rather indefinite extent. When, however, Mosia and Macedonia became Roman provinces, it corresponded almost exactly with the modern Roumelia. The mountain chains of the Hamus and Rhodope (the Balkan and Despoto-Dagh) were its northern and western boundaries; on its east was the Euxine, on its south the Ægean and Propontis. It was thus a route from Europe to Asia. This gave the country considerable importance. Its mountains and its climate made it difficult for military operations. Its population too were savage, treacherous, and warlike. Their light infantry and irregular cavalry were not to be despised as a contingent in any army. Thus they were useful mercenaries, like the Swiss. But the people seem to have had hardly any bond of union, There were several tribes, the Bessi, Scordisci, Triballi, Mædi, Odrusæ, which, like the Highland clans, were continually at feud among themselves. In fact, the interior of the country was barbarous. On the Ægean and the Propontis_there was some civilization, even in quite early times. The Greek colonies of Perinthus and Byzantium were well situated for commerce, and became flourishing cities. With this exception, Thrace had no towns of any importance. It inevitably became a Roman dependency, when Rome had completed her conquest of Greece, and of the countries south of the Danube.

Thrace may be said to appear first in Roman history during the war with Antiochus in the early part of the second century, B.C. Lucius Scipio Asiaticus, as he was surnamed from being the first Roman general who led an army into Asia, entered that continent by way of Macedonia and Thrace. In this he was assisted by Philip, King of Macedonia, who seems to have had more or less control over his Thracian neighbours. In 190 B.C., he won the decisive victory of Magnesia, which overthrew the kingdom of Antiochus and put Asia Minor under the power of Rome. Her eastern conquests date from that period. Scipio's successor, Manlius Vulso, after arranging affairs in Asia, and securing the fruits of the recent victory, crossed by the Hellespont into Europe, and led his returning army through Thrace. Of his march through the country we have an account in Livy

(XXXVIII. 40, 41). He was encumbered, it appears, with much baggage and spoil, and a number of camp-followers. His object was to march from the Thracian Chersonesus (the peninsula of the Dardanelles or of Gallipoli), along the shores of the Ægean into Macedonia. During the entire route he was incessantly harassed by the Thracian tribes, who no doubt knew that he was carrying with him a vast amount of treasure from Asia. It was thought too, Livy says, that they were encouraged by Philip of Macedon. Under the circumstances, they proved themselves a formidable enemy, and though the Roman general ultimately won something like a victory over them, yet he suffered heavy loss, many of his soldiers being killed, and much of his Asiatic spoil carried off. This was the first Roman experience of Thrace, and it was enough to show that both the country and its people must be approached with caution.

Next, in B.C. 172, we hear of Thrace courting an alliance with Rome (Livy, XLII. 19). This was accepted. The offer, it seems, was provoked by Philip's attempt to reduce the Thracian tribes to subjection. It no doubt occurred to the Roman statesmen that they might turn the country to some account in the war with Macedon, which was now impending. In that war Thrace was a source of embarrassment to Perseus, King of Macedon, rather than of aid. The conquest of his kingdom was thus facilitated for Rome. Its independence was overthrown by the battle of Pydna, in B.C. 168, and in 149, Macedonia was probably reduced into a Roman province.

From this time we may date Rome's relations with Thrace. Her territory now touched that country on the west, and her armies were often engaged with its tribes. Of the particulars we have not much information, Livy's history being lost to us after the year B.C. 167, when the war with Perseus of Macedon was concluded. It appears from the epitomes of the lost books, that the province of Macedon found Thrace a troublesome neighbour. The name of the Scordisci frequently occurs, and it may be inferred that for some time they were the leading Thracian tribe. More than one Roman army was defeated by them. In B.C. 92, a serious reverse was sustained from the Mædi, a tribe occupy. ing the west of Thrace and the heights of Rhodope. Caius Sentius, the governor of Macedonia, was severely beaten by them, and his province overrun and ravaged. In fact, it was many years before the Thracian tribes were held in check, as there is continual mention in the epitomes of Livy of their incursions into Roman territory. We are reminded of our own wars with the Scotch and the Welsh, who as to their character and the nature of their countries were not unlike the Thracians. It may be said that Thrace was to the Romans what Afghanistan or Cabool has proved to us. So long as they could leave the country to itself, they were very willing to do so. When, how

ever, the Mithridatic war came, they saw that they must, for their own safety, reduce it to dependence, if not to absolute subjection. It seems that the Thracians rendered the King of Pontus much indirect assistance, and knowing that Rome was entangled in a difficult war, they became more than usually troublesome. Sulla, however, cowed them for a time by a series of victories. His lieutenant, Scribonius Curio, followed up these successes, and was the first Roman who (in B.C. 75) accomplished the feat of leading a Roman army to the Danube. The Bessi seem now to have been the chief people of Thrace, and the Scordisci disappear. Marcus Lucullus, the brother of the great conqueror of Mithridates, when governor of Macedonia, gained a decisive victory over this tribe, and like Curio, penetrated the country between the Hæmus and the Danube, afterwards known as the province of Mosia. Thrace was now in reality a Roman dependency, and its natives served in Roman armies. It had its kings, but it was understood that they were under Rome's control and would be willing, when she required it, to furnish her with auxiliaries. Thracian coins of the period of Augustus exhibit the effigy of that emperor and of his wife Livia on one side, and on the other, the effigy of a native Thracian prince. This was an acknowledgement that the country had parted with its independence. The finishing stroke to its conquest was put, probably, in B.C. II, by Lucius Piso, whom Tacitus mentions (Annals, VI. 10) as having won a triumph in Thrace. It appears from Dion Cassius (Book LIV.) that one Vologæsus, a chief of the Bessi tribe, and also a priest of Bacchus, the special Thracian divinity, endeavoured to excite the fury and religious fanaticism of his countrymen against Rome. The movement was quelled by Piso, and Thrace, though not yet made into a province, became completely subject to the Roman power.

The first notice of it in the Annals is on the occasion of Germanicus's visit to Perinthus and Byzantium (II. 54), which are spoken of as closely connected with the province of Asia, and as almost part of it. We have next a sketch of the arrangements made by Augustus in the country, and of a further interference by Tiberius, A.D. 19. It is noticed for the last time in the Annals, as they have come down to us, in relating the suppression of a rebellion in A.D. 26 (Annals IV. 46-51). From that time Thrace drops out of sight. We cannot say exactly when it was definitely constituted a Roman province. Mosia to the north had been a province since A.D. 15. On every side Thrace was thus surrounded by Roman territory. It is to be noted that the last coins which show the head of a Roman emperor on one side, and that of a Thracian king on the obverse, belong to the reign of Caligula. The Eusebian chronicle, not an invariably accurate authority, states that the country was made a province in A.D. 47, during the reign of Claudius. This

statement is flatly contradicted by Suetonius (if we may trust the reading of the passage), for he says, (Vespasian, vIII.) that this was done by Vespasian. But, strangely enough, in the same sentence, he couples with Thrace, Achaia and Cilicia, which we know were Roman provinces long before the time of Vespasian. It has been suggested that for "Thraciam" we ought to read "Tracheam Ciliciam." At any rate, it may, we think, be assumed that not much dependence can be placed on the passage. We suspect that in this instance the Eusebian Chronicle is right, and the fact we have just mentioned about the Thracian coins seems to point in the same direction. We may add that Tacitus (Hist. I. 11) speaks of Thrace as if it was a province in A.D. 68, the year of Galba's accession to the empire.

NOTE ON CHAPTERS 16, 17 OF BOOK VI.

THE FINANCIAL CRISIS AT ROME IN A.D. 33.

THESE two chapters require some explanation, both historically and as to certain expressions which occur in them. The financial crisis and the ruin in which it involved many families, are represented by Tacitus as due to a sudden and wholesale prosecution of the money-lenders, who had been carrying on their business in a way forbidden by Julius Cæsar's legislation on this matter. The legal proceedings arising out of the affair were on too great a scale to be dealt with in the usual manner by the prætor, and he therefore referred them to the Senate. Nearly all the senators appear to have been implicated in these transactions, and so they begged the emperor to settle the business as gently and leniently as he could. The usury-laws of the dictator could not be revived in a moment. A year and a half was granted, within which their requirements were to be enforced. During this period all monies lent on mortgage were called in; this led to a number of forced sales, under the direction of the treasury officials, and a large proportion of the specie found its way into the exchequer, where it remained locked up. Cæsar's law was now applied, and the Senate ordered that, in each case, the creditor should have landed security in Italy for only two-thirds of the amount he had advanced. This was intended to relieve the debtor and bring back money into circulation. The creditor who had been exacting high interest would have, under this arrangement, to submit to a loss of one-third of his invested capital. Suetonius says that the Senate's order was to the following effect: that the moneylenders were to invest two-thirds of their property in land, and the debtors were to pay off at once two-thirds of their debt. However, it seems clear that the debtor was to be relieved altogether of one-third of his debt, and this it was which the whole body of creditors resisted. They claimed payment in full (in solidum appellabant). With the debtor, too, such payment was a point of honour. It could, however, be accomplished only by a multitude of forced sales. Thus an immense number of

*

*Life of Tiberius, 48. Cum per senatus consultum sanxisset ut foeneratores duas patrimonii partes in solo collocarent, debitores totidem aeris alieni statim solverent. What Suetonius terms "patrimonium," is with Tacitus "fenus" (invested capital).