CHAPTER VI.
Rome—The repugnance of the Romans to seafaring pursuits—Single-banked galleys of the Liburni—The fleets of Rome—Their creation and slow progress—The form and construction of their galleys—War with the pirates of Cilicia—First treaty with Carthage, B.C. 509—Its purport—College of merchants, established B.C. 494—No senator allowed to own ships, B.C. 226—Cicero’s opinion of merchants—Contempt for mariners—Reduction of Egypt, B.C. 30, and trade with India—Customs’ duties—The excise—Bounties on the importation of corn, A.D. 14—System of collecting the taxes—Value of the trade with Alexandria—Its extent—Vessels of Spain—Pharos or lighthouse at Gessoriacum—The shipping described by Tacitus—Rhodians—Their maritime laws—System of accounts in use at Rome—The corn trade of the city—Port of Ostia.
Rome.
In a previous chapter an outline has been given of the commerce and navigation of the Carthaginians in succession to that of the Phœnicians. A rapid glance will now be taken of the shipping and progress of the maritime commerce of the great nation that destroyed Carthage, and, by the valour of its arms and the vigour of its political system, rather than by its genius and industry, extended its dominions over the whole of Italy, Syria, Egypt, and Western Asia, ultimately reducing to the condition of provinces all the habitable portions of Europe.
The repugnance of the Romans to sea-faring pursuits.
Great as soldiers, the citizens of Rome had, however, a repugnance to maritime affairs. “Their ambition,” remarks Gibbon,[285] in his history of their decline and fall, “was confined to the land; nor was that warlike people ever actuated by the enterprising spirit which had prompted the navigators of Tyre, of Carthage, and even of Marseilles, to enlarge the bounds of the world, and to explore the most remote coasts of the ocean. To the Romans the ocean remained an object of terror rather than of curiosity.”
Single-banked galleys of the Liburni.
Unlike the Phœnicians and Carthaginians, the Romans had no inclination to expeditions of mere discovery, and never cared to become acquainted with any country whose remote situation appeared to defy their arms. Vain of their own power and of the extent of their dominions, they did not hesitate, in almost every instance, to bestow the name of barbarians on the civilized inhabitants of India as well as on those of other parts of the world, whose manners or customs were indistinctly known to them. Despising commercial pursuits, they looked to Greece and other nations to regulate their over-sea trade and to supply their wants; and when their fleets obtained the dominion of the sea, their object was less to protect their rapidly extending maritime commerce than to consolidate and preserve their power and dominion upon the land. In the reign of Augustus the plan of fixed naval stations was, for the first time, adopted; two being appointed, one at Ravenna to command the eastern, the other at Misenum to command the western division of the Mediterranean. By this time the Romans had learned from experience that galleys of more than three banks of oars were unsuited for real service, and consequently their more important fleets, from the reign of Augustus, consisted almost exclusively of the light and swift vessels known as Liburnians, from the people who were the first to build them.
Single-banked galleys of the Liburni.
Occupying a district a little north of the present Dalmatia, and devoting their attention almost exclusively to sea-faring pursuits, the Liburnians[286] had obtained a great reputation for their knowledge of the art of navigation. Provided with excellent harbours, and holding in their grasp many of the small islands of the Adriatic, which afforded them shelter from storms and a convenient rendezvous for their swift craft, they unfortunately made but little distinction between the duties of the honest trader and the predatory habits of the buccaneer: but to them Octavianus was mainly indebted for his victory over Antony at Actium, and Rome itself for the introduction of a better and swifter type of war-vessel.[287]
The fleets of Rome.
Their creation and slow progress.
The form and construction of their galleys.
Although Ravenna and Misenum were the principal stations of their navy, the Romans had fleets at various other places. Forty ships and three thousand soldiers then guarded the waters of the Euxine; a very considerable force was stationed at Frejus (Forum-Julii); numbers of Roman vessels cruised in the English Channel to preserve the communication between Gaul and Britain; while, throughout the whole period of her supremacy, a strong force was maintained on the Danube and Rhine to protect the empire from the inroads of the Northern barbarians. But these fleets were the slow growth of centuries; and the navies of Rome were for a long time of comparatively little note, and obtained celebrity only when the first Punic war roused her citizens to extraordinary exertions to deprive Carthage of its maritime supremacy.[288] Roman fleets were then constructed and spread over the Mediterranean with such rapidity that the Carthaginians would not credit the reports of their number and equipment. In their construction they displayed the energy they had ever shown when they had once determined on their plan. Skilled artisans, from friendly or subjected states, were ready to execute their orders, and the banks of the Tiber resounded with the noise of the axe, the adze, the hammer, and the mallet. Nor is there any reason to suppose that the first fleet Rome sent forth to oppose the powerful squadrons of the Carthaginians was so much inferior to the galleys of Augustus as has been supposed by some writers.[289] But the real character of the Roman vessels cannot now be ascertained; as no Roman historian has thought it worth his while, probably from ignorance on such matters, to give details from which they could, even in imagination, be constructed.
It is, however, reasonable to suppose that they were much the same as the ships of the Greeks and Carthaginians, or of the merchant vessel, already described, in which St. Paul made his celebrated voyage, and that their form and dimensions were regulated by the services they were expected to perform. In a note we subjoin a list of the number of fleets the Romans are known to have had in the brief space of twenty years, as they will give a better idea than anything else of the vigour of their administration, and of the energy wherewith, in the best days of the republic, they surmounted disasters which would have crushed to the ground a less self-reliant people.[290]
But so far as commerce is concerned, it was only when they had brought the third Punic war to an end, and had destroyed the great trading cities of Carthage and Corinth,[291] that the Romans really began to devote their abilities to commercial pursuits, and recognize in the site of one of them (Corinth), a great centre of trade for Asia, Western Greece, and Italy. Hence it was that, when the Corinthian people joined the Achæan League, for the preservation of the independence of Greece, the Romans found an excuse for the capture, though not for the plunder and destruction of Corinth.
War with the pirates of Cilicia.
By the burning of these two great towns, instigated as these acts doubtless were, in no small degree, by a lust for plunder, the Romans not merely lost, for a time, the advantages they might have derived from a continuation of the trade hitherto successfully conducted by the Carthaginian and Corinthian merchants and shipowners, but drove those of the latter class, who had saved their property, and who had no other means of subsistence, to join Mithradates, and to convert their ships, as circumstances allowed or encouraged, into ships of war, privateers, or pirates. Persons of rank and capital then embarked to an extent previously unknown in marauding expeditions, with the object either of personal gain, or of the destruction of the maritime commerce of Rome. The organization of this confederacy was of the most formidable character. They erected forts, watch-towers, arsenals, and magazines; and from Cilicia, their citadel in chief, their squadrons swept the seas. Hence their historical name of the Cilician pirates. Every merchant ship that ventured forth became either their prize or their prey. Commerce was seriously interrupted; and the citizens of Rome lost their usual supplies of corn. The piratical ships increased in numbers and in daring; they infested the coasts of Italy, plundered the temples, and even ascended the Tiber in search of spoil. At length Pompey put an end to their power, by a brilliant victory at Coracesium, and in a campaign of only forty days’ duration.[292]
B.C. 67.
First treaty with Carthage, B.C. 509.
Having cleared the seas of the ships of this confederacy, the merchants of Rome were free to carry on with more prospect of success the leading branches of a commerce which had for centuries yielded large profits to the merchants of Corinth and of Carthage. Hitherto commerce had been held an ignoble occupation for Roman citizens, nor were there apparently any facilities for its encouragement, or any advantages sought in their commercial intercourse with strangers. Indeed, in their first treaty with the Carthaginians, the earliest record of any commercial treaty, the Romans were satisfied with conditions which restricted any extension of such maritime trade as they then possessed. “Let there be friendship,” says the treaty, “between us and the Romans, together with their allies, on the following terms and conditions. Let not the Romans nor their allies navigate beyond the Fair Promontory. If they be driven by storm or chased by enemies beyond it—i.e., westward of it—let them not buy or receive anything but what is necessary for repairing their vessels, and for sacrifice; and let them take their departure within five days of the time of their landing. Whatever merchant or ship-owner may arrive on the business of merchandise let him pay no duty, except the fee of the broker and the clerk. Let the public faith be security for the seller, for whatever is sold in the presence of these officers—that is to say, whatever is sold in Africa or Sardinia. If any Romans arrive at that part of Sicily which is subject to Carthage, let them have impartial justice. Let not the Carthaginians do any injury to the people of Ardea, Antium, Laurentium, Cercii, Tarracina, nor to any of the Latins who shall be subject to Rome. Let them not attack the free towns of the Latins. If they shall take any of them, let them deliver it up to the Romans free of any damage. Let them build no fort in the land of the Latins. If they make a hostile landing in the country, let them not remain all night in it.”[293]
Its purport.
This convention gives a higher idea of the relative power of Rome at that early period, than is to be gathered from the annalists. It is clear that even then she must have had a naval force of some importance, while the Latins are distinctly called the “subjects” of Rome. It further shows very clearly how trade was then conducted. The prohibition of sailing beyond the Fair Promontory was no doubt inserted, lest, by directing their attention to maritime commerce, the Romans should deprive the Carthaginians of a portion of their valuable trade with Spain. Probably with the same view an interdiction was also placed against the Romans trading with the fertile coasts of Africa, in the vicinity of the Lesser Syrtis, showing that an occasional merchant vessel must, even at that early period, have ventured as far. But the Carthaginians were obviously at that time strong enough to dictate, to a considerable extent, their own terms, and the Romans too weak to resent this dictation.
College of merchants established, B.C. 494.
No senator allowed to own ships, B.C. 226.
It seems likely that this treaty induced the Romans to pay more attention to commercial pursuits than they had previously done, for Livy[294] states that within a few years of its execution, a college of merchants, the precise nature of which is not known, was established at Rome; centuries, however, elapsed before the State afforded any real encouragement to commercial intercourse with other countries. Indeed, as far as can now be ascertained, the supply of corn for the capital formed the chief and for ages almost the only article of commerce worthy of senatorial notice, as any scarcity in the supply of that necessary article invariably produced tumults among the people.[295] But it was only when their increasing wants obliged them to direct attention to foreign trade, that the law so far encouraged ship-building, as to exempt from municipal taxation those vessels employed in the importation of corn. Every other trade with foreign countries was restricted to a certain class of the citizens, who, with constitutional jealousy, restrained the senators from embarking in what was likely to prove highly remunerative. Quintus Claudius, a tribune of the people, proposed a law, and carried it against the Senate, Caius Flaminius alone assisting him, that no senator or the father of a senator should be proprietor of a sea-going ship of a greater capacity than three hundred amphoræ.[296] A vessel of this very limited size might be large enough to carry the produce of their own lands to market; but, in the opinion of the citizens no Roman senator ought to take part in general mercantile operations which might lead him, perhaps, to neglect his duties to the State.
Nor were any relaxations made in these laws during the most flourishing periods of the empire. On the contrary, as was the case during many previous centuries, noblemen, persons filling exalted offices, and great capitalists, were forbidden the exercise of any trade whatever, lest they should by such means become suddenly rich, and thus draw down upon them the envy of the people.
Cicero’s opinion of merchants.
The emperors Honorius and Theodosius, in consolidating these laws, state that “as trade might be carried on with greater ease among men of base extraction, the respect due to persons of quality renders it necessary to deprive them of the full liberty of trading.” And Cicero observes, that “Trade is mean if it has only a small profit for its object: but it is otherwise if it has large dealings, bringing many sorts of merchandise from foreign parts, and distributing them to the public without deceit; and if, after a reasonable profit, such merchants are contented with the riches they have acquired, and purchasing land with them retire into the country and apply themselves to agriculture, I cannot,” says the great orator, in quite a vein of aristocratical condescension, “perceive wherein is the dishonour of that function.”[297]
Contempt for mariners.
From the whole tenor of this legislation it is easy to understand why persons engaged in seafaring pursuits were so long despised; and that the strongest measures were necessary to secure for them even ordinary justice. Naturally, however, when, on the destruction of Corinth and Carthage, a more extended trade arose, the prejudice against mariners somewhat abated, though among the nobility and great landowners of Rome, a lasting aversion prevailed against seafaring men. In the time of Cicero, the advantages of foreign commerce were only beginning to be felt at Rome, for previously her traders had been simply retailers of corn and provisions. But when the empire of the seas fell indisputably into the hands of the Romans, there arose merchants and large owners of sea-going ships, who in their operations with distant countries realised colossal fortunes, and were thus deemed by Cicero and his class worthy of being distinguished from the mere retailers; and thus, too, in Rome, as has befallen elsewhere, wealth at length supplied the place of birth and genius, Roman merchants entering at last into friendly relations with even its proudest landowners and citizens, and Rome itself becoming the depôt for numberless articles produced abroad. “The most remote countries of the ancient world,” remarks Gibbon, “were ransacked, to supply the pomp and delicacy of Rome. The forests of Scythia afforded some valuable furs. Amber was brought overland from the shores of the Baltic to the Danube, and the barbarians were astonished at the price which they received in exchange for so useless a commodity. There was a considerable demand for Babylonian carpets, and other manufactures of the East; but the most important and unpopular branch of trade was carried on with Arabia and India.”[298]
Reduction of Egypt, B.C. 30, and trade with India.
No event, however, proved more advantageous to her merchants than the reduction of Egypt to a Roman province, which was finally effected by Octavianus after the battle of Actium. The Romans thus not merely recovered the regular supply of corn they always so much needed, but obtained a monopoly of nearly all the trade between India and Europe. Though affording a vast source of wealth to those engaged in it, the trade with India was unpopular with the bulk of the Roman people, who saw a few individuals enriched by its incredible profits, while the country was drained of specie to pay for every conceivable article of luxury. The raw materials which alone could afford remunerative employment to the Roman manufacturers were too costly in their transit to constitute, as they do now, the chief articles of import; and the natives of India and of Arabia were so well satisfied with the productions and manufactures of their own territories, that silver was almost the only article they would receive in exchange from the Romans. Pliny computed the annual loss arising from these exchanges at eight hundred thousand pounds sterling;[299] and Gibbon has noticed that a pound of silk was at one period esteemed of the same value as a pound of gold.[300]
Customs’ duties.
But though it is a mistake to suppose that in the ordinary course of commerce, the export of the precious metals entails a loss when exchanged for produce and manufactures, Pliny had some reason to dread the results, while the industrious citizens had ample cause for complaint when they saw the whole wealth of the empire exchanged for pearls, precious stones, or costly aromatics required only for the funeral pageants of a few wealthy citizens. Nor is it hard to understand the accumulation of great riches about this period at Rome, when we reflect on the number of valuable provinces over which its rulers had the power of almost unlimited taxation. Gibbon estimates the income of these provinces during the reign of Augustus at from fifteen to twenty millions of our money.[301] Customs, too, were introduced during this period, and were followed by a regulated scheme of excise, whereby both the real and the personal property of the Roman citizens were made subject to a system of taxation from which they had been exempt for more than a century and a half.
A.D. 222.
But in great empires, such as Rome, the natural balance of money soon establishes itself. The wealth at first attracted to the capital, as the chief place of abode for the aristocracy, by degrees finds its way to the industrial people in the provinces, to be employed in the development of arts and manufactures, and is thus spread throughout the whole kingdom, to find its way back to the capital, through the medium of those who, having by commerce or otherwise accumulated a superabundance, resort thither to spend it. In the reign of Augustus and of his successors, the duties also imposed on every kind of merchandise found their way through numerous channels to Rome, the great centre of opulence and luxury, so that, in whatever manner the law was expressed, the Roman purchaser, rather than the provincial merchant, paid the tax. A higher duty was imposed on articles of luxury than on those of necessity, varying from an eighth to the fortieth part of the value of the commodity; and the productions raised or manufactured by the labour of the people were wisely treated with more indulgence than was shown to the luxurious products of India and Arabia.[302] “There is still extant,” remarks Gibbon,[303] “a long but imperfect catalogue of Eastern commodities which, about the time of Alexander Severus, were subject to the payment of duties: cinnamon, myrrh, pepper, ginger, and the whole tribe of aromatics, a great variety of precious stones, among which the diamond was the most remarkable for its price, and the emerald for its beauty; Parthian and Babylonian leather, ebony, ivory, and eunuchs; and we may observe,” adds this great historian, “that the value of these effeminate slaves gradually rose with the decline of the empire.”
The excise.
Although the excise seldom exceeded one per cent. ad valorem, it embraced whatever was sold by private contract, or in the markets by public auction, from the largest purchase of lands and houses, to those minute objects which have a value only from their infinite number and daily consumption. Against taxes of this description there were, as there have ever been in all countries, loud complaints on the part of the people; but when the emperor endeavoured to substitute for these obnoxious and vexatious imposts a new tax of five per cent. on all legacies and inheritances, the nobles of Rome, who were more tenacious of their property than of their freedom, were, in spite of their indignant murmurs, compelled to acquiesce in the imposition of a land tax.[304]
Bounties on the importation of corn, A.D. 14.
A.D. 41.
The annual tributes, customs, and direct taxation of the provinces, tended still further to produce the balance of values. The farmers were paid with their own money. The Romans laid not only heavy duties upon the natural products of every country subject to their sway, but also an export duty on produce sent away, as well as an import duty on any article brought in for the consumption of the provinces. A transit duty was even levied on goods and produce of British origin during their passage through the Roman province of Gaul. At the other extremity of the empire, on the coasts of the Arabian Gulf, the same system of fixed taxation was enforced; but the high prices we have named as prevailing at Rome for foreign goods of all kinds, especially those of India, Arabia, and Babylonia, rendered this taxation comparatively light. The Portorium[305] or tax on produce or manufactures brought by sea, resembled greatly the custom duties levied at the ports of Great Britain during the present century; they were exacted by officers of the public revenue, at harbours, rivers, and sometimes also at the passages of bridges. On the other hand, besides the relief from municipal taxation, an adequate and regular supply of corn was deemed so essential that shipowners were offered liberal bounties to bring it from abroad. In the reign of Tiberius, it is stated by Tacitus,[306] that, as the people murmured at the oppressive price of grain, the emperor settled its price to the buyer, and undertook to pay two sesterces a measure to the corn-dealers and importers. More than this, the Emperor Claudius, unlike the rulers of some of the nations of our own time, whose systems are too often prohibitory of the importation of the staple article of food for the people, urged the ship-owners to make voyages during the winter, when they usually laid up their vessels, and besides confirming to them the allowances sanctioned by Tiberius, with relief from municipal taxation, took on himself all losses, at the same time securing the importers a certain rate of profit.
System of collecting the taxes.
A.D. 211.
Value of the trade with Alexandria.
Of the several impositions introduced by Augustus the five per cent. on legacies and inheritances was the most fruitful as well as the most comprehensive. Farmed like nearly all other taxes (for in every age the best and wisest of the Roman governors adhered to this pernicious method of collecting the principal customs), the burden was increased by the insolence and cupidity of the collectors; hence, when two centuries afterwards Caracalla doubled the already heavy impost, this act of oppression nearly cost him his throne and his life.[307] Yet, in spite of the extravagant luxury of the wealthier classes, the enormous value of the imperial commerce, together with the extent and wealth of the provinces, enabled the government to maintain for a long time an expenditure which, under other circumstances, could not have been endured; and much, indeed, of this wealth was really due to the possession of Egypt, apart altogether from the large commercial profits derived from Alexandria. Besides corn, Egypt supplied the imperial city with flax and linen of various qualities, cotton goods, costly ointments, marble, alabaster, fine alum, salt, gums, and the papyrus, from which paper was manufactured at Rome. Three hundred thousand of the million inhabitants of Alexandria consisted of Roman citizens, but its merchants and ship-owners were chiefly emigrants from Greece or of Grecian origin.
Its extent.
Although the value of the trade with Egypt, which comprised the chief portion of that with India and Arabia, was in itself greater than any other, it fell far short of supplying the numerous wants of Rome. Caravans traversed, as they had done centuries before that city became mistress of the world, the whole latitude of Asia in two hundred and forty-three days,[308] from the Chinese ocean to the sea coast of Syria, to supply her with the silk her rich citizens were always eager to obtain. Nor could Egypt alone supply her demands even for corn and cattle. That fertile country, which stretches from the southern foot of the Alps to the shores of the Mediterranean, grew large quantities of corn for Rome, and reared numerous cattle for her market, while from Northern Italy she drew her supplies of salt provisions for the use of her troops and mariners. The Sabine country also furnished wheat, rice, and barley; and thence large quantities of wine were imported, as well as from Corsica, Sardinia, and Sicily. Timber, suitable for ship-building purposes, was extensively imported from Etruria. Genoa exported largely, for the use of the Romans, wood for furniture, coarse wool for the clothing of their slaves, hides, and honey.
There was likewise a very considerable trade between Malta and the Tiber in white cloths of wool and linen. Greece, and the Greek islands, Samos, Cos, and Thrace, furnished green marble, dyes, cambrics, and earthenwares; and from the Euxine were imported wax, hemp, and pitch, and wool of the finest quality; while the ancient trade with Persia, through Trebizond, remained unbroken during the Roman supremacy, greatly increasing when Constantinople became the eastern capital of the empire. Phrygia produced alabaster; Miletus woollen goods, and Tyrian purple; and Sidon and Tyre, glass manufactures and rich work in embroidery. From Africa proper the Romans imported very considerable quantities of corn, drugs, and horses, together with the wild elephants and lions required for their gladiatorial exhibitions.[309]
Trade with Spain.
Next to Egypt, Spain was the largest seat of their foreign trade. Its products of lead, iron, copper, silver, and gold, were sources of vast wealth; and the corn, wool, wine, oil, honey, wax, pitch, dyes, and salted provisions of a superior quality afforded a large and lucrative commerce to the merchants, ship-owners, and manufacturers of Rome. Indeed, so extensive were the commercial transactions carried on in the Spanish Peninsula, that nearly as many ships were employed in its trade as in that with the whole of Africa. Nor need we doubt that the vessels so occupied were as large as those engaged in the Egyptian trade already noticed. New Carthage (Cartagena), Saguntum, Tarragona, and Bilbilis (Bilboa), even then famous for its steel, had a large commercial intercourse with Rome, in provisions, cordage, and linens of remarkable whiteness and texture. The province of Gaul formed a rich appendix to the Roman empire, though the only ports directly connected with the Tiber were Massalia (Marseilles), Arelate (Arles), and Narbo[310] (Narbonne), at that period the most frequented and most populous city in Gaul. Narbonne has since suffered the same fate as Ostia, the silting up of its port having entirely destroyed its value.
Pharos, or lighthouse at Gessoriacum.
The chief exports of Gaul appear to have been gold, silver, and iron from its own mines; linens from every part of the country; corn and cheese of superior quality; with excellent salt pork, and tartan cloths. Burdigala (Bordeaux,) on the Garonne, was its chief port on the west, and on the north the Portus Itius (by some supposed to be Wissant, near Cape Grisnez, but more probably Boulogne). At this port, called afterwards Gessoriacum,[311] and whence Cæsar sailed for Britain, was the lighthouse constructed by Caligula, some remains of which are said to have existed in the early part of the seventeenth century. This tower, or Pharos, the first lighthouse on record for any part of the coasts of the North Sea or English Channel, stood upon the promontory or cliff which commanded the port. Of an octagonal form (if Bucherius is right in supposing the building he has drawn to be the remains of Caligula’s structure), it was twenty-five feet in breadth, and the circumference of the whole at the base two hundred feet. It had twelve storeys or spaces for galleries, rising above each other. Each storey diminished in diameter as you ascended, and on the top of the tower a fire was kindled every evening at sunset, and served as the beacon light for the guidance of mariners.
The shipping described by Tacitus.
Rhodians.
Tacitus[312] has preserved a description of the expedition of Germanicus, but his “Annals” throw little light upon the state of that portion of the Roman navy which assisted in the conquest of Germany, and frequented the northern seas about the period when the first lighthouse was erected in the English Channel. Indeed his description very imperfectly represents either the vessels or seamen of those maritime nations, who, becoming subject to Rome, largely aided her alike in her naval and in her commercial victories. Of these none have left a more lasting record of their existence as a maritime people than the Rhodians. Alike celebrated for their skill as navigators, and their honesty and shrewdness as merchants, they excelled all others as jurists. Their laws relating to navigation were introduced into the Roman code, and formed the groundwork of maritime jurisprudence throughout the civilized world. Colonized, no doubt, by some of the more civilized nations of Western Asia, and probably by the Phœnicians, the Rhodians from their position, in a small island and on the great highway of commerce, as well as from their skill in astronomy and in navigation, soon took a prominent part among nations more populous and powerful than themselves. Accessible to all the surrounding naval powers, and deriving their chief commercial wealth from their trade with Egypt, the Rhodians from the first made it their business to keep the police of the surrounding seas; and having punished the pirates who then infested the Mediterranean with exemplary severity, pursued their trade as merchant navigators with equal security and success.
During the great struggle between Ptolemy and Antigonus, the Rhodians naturally sided with the former; and hence were compelled to undergo one of the most celebrated sieges of antiquity, by Demetrius Poliorcetes the son of Antigonus: their resistance, however, was so remarkable that, on raising the siege, B.C. 304, Demetrius, out of respect for their prowess, is said to have presented them with the engines he had employed against them during the siege. The value of these engines was so great as to enable the islanders to erect the colossal statue of Apollo[313] (the work of Chares of Lindus, who was engaged on it for twelve years), which is known in history as one of the Seven Wonders of the world. Placed, according to the usual (though probably fabulous) story, with extended legs on the two moles forming the entrance of the smaller harbour, and in height seventy cubits, all vessels entering and leaving passed under it. But this memorable statue was overthrown, only fifty-six years after its erection, by an earthquake (224 B.C.), which destroyed the naval arsenals and a great portion of the once famous city; and, though liberal promises were made towards its restoration, there is no satisfactory evidence that it ever was replaced.[314]
Their maritime laws.
But the Rhodians, in their laws, have transmitted to posterity a monument of their maritime wisdom, more enduring than the brass of which the Colossus was composed. These laws were for ages the sovereign judges of controversies relating to navigation. Even the Romans in such questions almost invariably appealed to their judgment. Indeed the Rhodian laws were held in such respect, that, on an appeal being made to Marcus Aurelius by one Eudæmon of Nicomedia, whose goods had been plundered on the wreck of his ship, that emperor replied: “I am the sovereign of the world; but the Rhodian law is sovereign wheresoever it does not run contrary to our statute law.”[315]
It would further appear, that the Rhodians were the first to establish rules, subsequently accepted universally, with regard to co-partnership, and the remuneration of the commanders, officers, and seamen, by shares in the profits of the ship, much in the same manner as is still done among whaling vessels. Again, they framed laws to be observed by freighters and by passengers while on board ship; they affixed penalties on the commander or seamen for injuries done to goods on board of their vessels, from want of sufficient tarpaulins or proper attention to the pumps, and for carelessness or absence from their duties. They also imposed penalties for barratry, for robbery of other ships, or for careless collisions, awarding a special and severe punishment to any one who ran away with a ship which had been placed under his charge. Punishments were likewise enforced for plundering wrecks, and a compensation allotted to the heirs of seamen who lost their lives in the service of the ship. The Rhodians were also the first to make regulations affecting charterparties and bills of lading, as well as contracts of partnership or joint adventures. They laid down rules for bottomry, for average and salvage, specifying a scale of rates for recovering goods from the bottom, in one and a half, twelve, and twenty-two feet and a half water; and also for the payment of demurrage.[316] The whole of these rules were copied by the Roman legislators and incorporated with the Roman laws; and having been thus handed down to the States of Europe, they constituted the main features of the laws known as the “Rôles d’Oleron,” and the “Hanse Town Ordinances of 1614 and 1681,” besides forming the basis of that English system of maritime law, which was brought to almost human perfection by the wisdom of Lord Mansfield.
System of accounts in use at Rome.
While the Romans were indebted to the Rhodians for their maritime laws, it seems likely that they gained their knowledge of accounts and book-keeping from the Greeks of Crete, who had themselves acquired the elements of this knowledge from the Phœnicians. It is, however, more than questionable whether the Romans improved upon the art. The private arrangements of the Roman merchants and ship-owners respecting the systematic practice of book-keeping were exemplary. Accounts were not actually enforced, as in some modern nations, by positive enactment, but as it was deemed base to charge what was not justly due, so it was held to be nefarious to omit entering what was due to others. The Roman merchants were evidently well acquainted with book-keeping by single entry, as they kept their accounts, Rationes,[317] in a book or ledger called codex, with headings in columns accepti or expensi (the received and the paid away); they had also a book containing each debtor’s or creditor’s name, and they posted in the ledger, at least once a month, the various items of debit and credit, which it was incumbent on every trader to state fairly and punctually. They had likewise a sort of waste-book (adversaria); and it was deemed a suspicious circumstance if entries in this rough book were neglected, and not duly entered on the codex[318] in the regular course of business. But though the system of single entry adopted by the Roman merchants and ship-owners much resembles that of modern times, their books were entirely different from those now in use among the traders of Europe and of the United States of America. They were rather rolls[319] of papyrus, each roll or page being divided into columns. The codex or ledger contained the separate accounts, in accordance with the still prevailing practice, headed with the proper name and titles of the respective parties, every transaction being duly transferred or posted into it for permanent observation and record. The ledger was then, as it is now, legal evidence, producible in courts of justice in cases of dispute. It contained in its debit and credit divisions the full account of each transaction. When the adversaria, containing the temporary memorandum of the transactions, on which necessary alterations were made before the particulars were transferred to the ledger at the end of each month, if not more frequently, was full, it was thrown aside or destroyed, the ledger being the only record preserved of the transactions which had been completed.
Although the Romans were slow in becoming a great naval power, it is clear that very soon after the battle of Actium they became as powerful at sea as on land; all the leading seafaring states having by this time become subject to the engrossing power of the empire, and there being no longer any naval power to contest with them the supremacy of the Mediterranean Sea: hence, for many years, there was no employment for their fleets, except to protect their commerce and to keep open the communication with the distant colonies of the empire. But long after Rome had swept the sea of her greater opponents, marauders of different races continued to prey upon commerce, so that her merchant traders, engaged on distant voyages, invariably took on board a number of Roman archers to guard their ships from pirates. These men were engaged either to protect the ship when an emergency arose,[320] or to man the oars, and, like the marines of our own time, acted as soldiers, or performed those portions of the sailor’s duties to which they had been trained.
The corn trade of the city.
Although, unfortunately, no clearly defined records of the maritime commerce of Rome at any period of her history have been preserved, its extent may be conjectured by the number and wealth of her citizens. One million and a quarter of people,[321] including nearly all the wealthy inhabitants of the empire—for these flocked to the capital in great numbers—would at any time require a large fleet of merchant ships to supply their varied wants. Even during the time of the Roman commonwealth, the vessels engaged in the corn trade alone of the city were so numerous, that medals were struck in commemoration of the traffic, bearing upon them the representation of the prow of a ship, and the inscription, “By decree of the Senate, for the purchase of corn.” That trade, as well as all others, increasing with the spread of the metropolis, must, in the reign of the Cæsars, have required an amount of shipping to supply its wants far in excess of that of any other city of either ancient or modern times. If one steamship now performs the work of at least three sailing vessels, each of equal capacity to the steamer, then, considering the dilatory movements of ancient vessels, it will not be an exaggerated estimate to allow six thousand tons of shipping as necessary to conduct the same amount of transport as one steamship of a thousand tons would now perform. Allowing, therefore, that Rome was not one half the size of London, and presuming that it required one half the amount of supplies from abroad, the shipping employed in its over-sea trade would be more than twice as great as that now necessary to supply the wants of the inhabitants of the metropolis of Great Britain.
A.D. 41.
Port of Ostia.
Previous to the reign of Claudius[322] the chief over-sea intercourse with the city was carried on by way of Puteoli, now Pozzuoli, near the Bay of Naples, about seventy miles from Rome. Here the larger description of vessels, employed in the trade of Alexandria and of Spain, discharged their cargoes; but the inconvenience and expense of land carriage became so enormous, especially upon low priced and bulky articles, such as corn, as to fully justify the cost of erecting the new port of Ostia, and the embanking and deepening of the Tiber. Half a century afterwards, the Emperor Trajan, remarkable not merely for the splendid edifices erected during his reign, in almost every part of the empire, but for the interest he took in maritime affairs, constructed, to meet the increasing wants of the provinces, the present Civita Vecchia, as well as the town and port of Ancona on the Adriatic, where may still be read an inscription on the monument of marble he raised at the extremity of the Mole, dedicating the harbour to the use of the mariners who frequented those seas.
But the port of Ostia was the most useful monument of Roman greatness in connection with shipping established by the empire, and has been described as one of the boldest and most stupendous works of Roman magnificence.[323] The accidents to which the precarious subsistence of the city was continually exposed in a winter navigation (a matter more worthy of serious consideration than the costs of transit) and in an open roadstead, had suggested to the genius of the first Cæsar this useful design, which was executed under the reign of Claudius, and finally completed under Nero. Within the artificial moles which formed its narrow entrance, and advanced far into the sea, “the largest vessels then engaged in the trade of Rome securely rode at anchor;” and in its deep and capacious basins, which were situated on the north bank of the Tiber, every facility was afforded for the discharge of their cargoes. This great work was represented on numerous coins and medals of the period, of which the following, struck by the Emperor Nero, furnishes a fair example.
But Ostia must have borne more resemblance to a wet dock of the present day than to a harbour or “port.” At the entrance was a tall tower, which served as a beacon by day, and a lighthouse by night for the guidance of vessels coming into the harbour.[324]