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.