are the sources behind the docum ent?” (‘The Haggada Within Script­
ure’ p. 99).
This is em phatically a book to ‘read, m ark, and inwardly
digest.’
H.R. Minn.
Donald Earl, The Moral and Political Tradition o f Rome. London,
Thames and H udson, 1967, pp. 167. 30/- U.K.
The series ‘Aspects o f Greek and Roman Life’, issued by
Messrs. Thames and Hudson, is rapidly making its mark in the field
o f hum ane scholarship. The present w ork, on the Roman tradition, is
thoroughly in the spirit o f the series. The author brings a w ealth of
learning and good judgem ent to the elucidation of perennial themes,
yet succeeds withal in w riting in a pleasant and intellegible style. His
work thus appeals not only to the classical scholar; it will awaken the
interest and enthusiasm of a wide range of readers.
This book is an exam ination o f the ideals o f the Roman
governing classes, w hether o f the Republic or o f the Empire; ideals
which were expressed in political and m ilitary leadership. From the
ideal of the Roman nobility “ developed the nearest approach the
Romans made to a philosophy o f history and a theory o f historical
processes. Moulded into a tradition o f quite extraordinary longevity
and vitality, it form ed to the end o f the Roman empire in the west
the m ost po ten t influence on all educated Romans. It becam e, in a
w ord, the Roman tradition. The developm ent of this tradition is the
subject of the present book” , (p .7).
We might look a little quizzically at such neo-Hegelian phrases
as ‘philosophy of history’, ‘a theory o f historical processes’, and even
‘developm ent’. But these, it soon appears, are only introductory
concessions to m odern predilections, and for the m ost part the book
is free from the vice of superim posed categories. Indeed the author
is adam ant that we must study the Roman scene w ith reference to its
own categories, not ours, and for the m ost part he is successful in this
policy.
The Romans at all periods, the author points out, saw political
life in moral term s. Whereas we habitually w rite history in such
categories as econom ics, sociology and political parties, the Romans
subsumed all these phenom ena under moral attributes. (In other words
89
they did not have our peculiar zest for ideology). Hence the primary
im portance through the centuries o f such notions as virtus, nobilitas,
gloria, fortuna, concordia, libertas, inertia, pietas, and a host o f other
qualities, good and bad. Not that these qualities were ever strictly
defined; rather they were implicit in practice, and all the more p o ten t
for being so, as witness their free em ploym ent in polemic.
The first chapter is an admirable conspectus o f virtus as under­
stood by the Republican nobility. “ Virtus, for the Republican noble,
consisted in the winning o f personal pre-eminence and glory by the
commission o f great deeds in the service o f the Roman state. ... From
being the ideal o f a narrow ruling class it became accepted as the
tradition o f Rome herself.” (p.21).
The concept o f virtus, and the general recognition which it
achieved, became in time the undoing o f the Roman nobility itself,
the class which had given it birth. And this for tw o reasons: In the
course o f time’ the nobles transferred allegiance from virtus to gloria.
Gloria is the proper reward for virtus, but when gloria is sought
directly, w ithout reference to virtus, the ensuing lust for pow er and
position destroys the state. At the same time new men, men o f native
genius, could justly claim pre-eminence in virtus over the defaulting
nobles. These changes, resulting in the end o f the Republic, are the
subject o f Chapter 2.
Did A ugujtus really restore the Republic,as the Res Gestae Divi
Augusti asserts? Or was the claim fraudulent? Dr Earl contends that
the claim is fully justified if by the Republic we mean not a particular
structure o f governm ent, but the exercise o f virtus under the rule of
law. This is a lucid treatm ent o f the subject, dispelling many hoary
prejudices by getting down to first principles.
Chapter 4 , ‘The Em peror’s Servants’,studies the imperial system
from the moral point o f view, thereby bringing into perspective many
things which are com m only seen distorted. The rise o f obsequium,
obedience,for instance,is rescued from the usual pejoratives, and given
its proper meaning.
The defence o f Romania, w ith special reference to the History'
o f Ammianus Marcellinus, is the subject o f the penultim ate chapter.
The moral focus is again in evidence here, not least with reference to
that m ysterious agent, fortuna.
The last ch a p te r,‘Epilogue’,is fittingly devoted to St. Augustine.
The dreaded event had finally happened: Rome had been sacked by the
barbarians. It was for St. Augustine to review the whole course of
Roman history from a synoptic standpoint. Dr. Earl’s treatm ent of
90
he De Civitate Dei is of necessity brief and selective. He gives special
ittention to St. A ugustine’s discussion o f the populus in Book xix;
md to his treatm ent o f virtus and gloria in Book v. St. A ugustine’s ‘is
a very Roman heaven’ the author concludes.
The m ighty spirit o f the Bishop of Hippo renders it singularly
difficult for com m entators to keep up w ith him. Dr. Earl may n o t have
said the last w ord on this subject, b u t he is more successful than many
com m entators, and this because o f his thorough preparatory w ork on
Roman tradition.
N otes, bibliography and index com plete a w ork which lifts our
understanding o f Roman history from the pedestrian paths to which
we have for so long been accustom ed, and sets us on a height w orthy
o f the theme.
G. W.R. Ardley.
The Roman Nobility by Mathias Gelzer. Translated w ith an in tro ­
duction by Robin Seager, O xford, Basil Blackwell, 1969. 36/-.
This book contains two works, Die Nobilitat der romische
Republik, first published in 1912, and Die Nobilitat der Kaiserzeit,
originally an article in Hermes, 1915. Astonishingly, particularly in the
case o f the form er, they have never before been available in English.
The hold which a mere handful o f noble families exercised on
the chief offices of the Roman Republic has always been a problem
to the student o f Roman history. As Gelzer points o u t, “ The
principle that not every citizen should be allowed to take p art in
governm ent was to the Romans so self-evident th at there was no law
on the subject and they never enunciated it.” But who were those
allowed to take part, w hat was the concept o f nobilitas, and how
were the restrictions perpetuated? These are the questions treated in
this book, and a clear picture emerges o f the mechanics o f power.
The fact that magistracies were open to none below the
equestrian order produced a certain tim ocratic lim itation; however,
the 40 0 ,0 00 sesterces required for the equestrian census did n ot, at
least in the first century B.C., constitute anything like wealth. Within
this wide classification smaller groups can be found, such as the
senatorial order, the nobiles, clarissimi and principes civitatis, only
the first o f which was legally defined. It was G elzer’s achievement to
prove that m em bership o f the senatorial order was by no means
91