in the case of conquered countries. Cicero can hardly be mistaken when he says that L. Mummius brought under Roman dominion many cities of Achaea and Boeotia. The Epitome of Livy (52) also preserves the fact of all Achaea having been surrendered (dedita) to the Romans, a term which expresses the complete extinguishment of the independence of a country, and also implies the necessity of a new political organization. It is certain that there was an organization (Toλrtía) given to the Greeks, to all the people at least south of Thessaly, for we know that when the ten commissioners left the country, after their six months' labours, they instructed Polybius to visit the cities, in order to explain such matters as might be doubtful to the people, and to continue to do so till the Greeks were familiar with the constitution (Toλreía), and the rules which the commissioners had established (Chap. v.). The result was that the people were satisfied with their new constitution, and had no difficulties either about their private concerns or in public matters under the new rules. All this indeed implies that a considerable amount of liberty in their internal or domestic affairs was secured to the Greek towns, but still there must have been a sovereign authority to appeal to in all difficulties, and to see that the new constitution was observed, or the supremacy of Rome over Achaea would not, in fact, have existed. There is no doubt that there was a supreme authority, and the only question is, whether a governor was from the first sent to Achaea as to other provinces, or whether Achaea was attached to Macedonia, and placed under a legatus of the Macedonian governor. There is a Greek inscription, the date of which may be a few years later than B.C. 146, which contains the name of a proconsul Q. Fabius Maximus, in which he addresses the magistrates and council and citizens of Dyme in Achaea, and informs them that he has condemned to death a man named Sosus, who had been a leading man in an attempt to change the constitution which had been given to Dyme. If we could prove that this Fabius was proconsul of Achaea, the independent existence of this province immediately after B.c. 146 would be established; but Fabius may have been proconsul of Macedonia.

No country which the Romans conquered suffered more than Greece. It was in a deplorable condition in the latter part of the Roman Republic and under the empire. The Greeks having lost their political freedom were placed under a new constitution, of which we know very little, except that the country never recovered from the effects of the war with the Romans, and that under Roman dominion the Greek towns decayed and the people grew poorer. The Romans certainly left many of the Greek towns in the condition of free cities (liberae civitates), the effect of which limited freedom was to except them from the immediate authority of a provincial governor, as was the case with the free cities of the province Africa. But this show of freedom given to single towns could not put life into a people who were under the heavy load of Roman government; for it is hardly necessary to observe that the existence of free towns in Achaea does not furnish the slightest ground for affirming that there was not also a provincial government. Free towns existed in the province of Sicily and in other Roman provinces. It is also observed by Becker, who has discussed this matter very fairly, that the fact of the name Achaea being supposed by some of the antient authorities to have been given to the province because it was formed after the defeat of the Achaean league, is itself an argument that a province Achaea was formed immediately after B.C. 146. If it was not made a province till the time of Augustus, there seems no reason why it should have had the name Achaea. The conclusion must be that the country south of Thessaly was organized under the name of Achaea immediately after B.C. 146, and was under a Roman governor, whatever may have been his name or title, but we cannot tell whether it had a separate governor or was attached to the government of Macedonia. There is evidence for B.C. 146 being considered as the commencement of a new political aera for Greece in the fact, mentioned by Becker, of Messene, Megara, Hermione, Aegina, and other places, having adopted the year B.C. 146 as their aera.

There is Plutarch's testimony, that to the time of L. Lucullus the Romans sent no propraetor to Achaea, for on

сс

the occasion of a dispute between the people of Orchomenus and Chaeroneia, two Boeotian towns, the decision, as he says, was with the governor of Macedonia. If we allege certain passages of Cicero as evidence that the praetor P. Gabinius Capito was governor of Achaea, and also L. Gellius, it may be said that the evidence is not decisive; and yet we have Cicero's distinct statement that Achaea selected L. Calpurnius Piso as their patronus or prosecutor of Gabinius, on a charge of Repetundae, in B.C. 88, and he was convicted; and the further statement, that in B.C. 70 a man set out to Achaea to collect evidence to support a charge of Repetundae against some man whom Cicero does not name. This indeed was only a pretext, for no evidence was collected, but the pretext implies the possibility of a governor being prosecuted for Repetundae in Achaea. Strabo's general statement as to the government of Achaea after the destruction of Corinth is this, that the parts as far as Macedonia were under Roman dominion, and that governors were sent to various parts. If we put all the evidence together it appears probable, as Becker concludes, that Achaea was sometimes administered as one province with Macedonia, and sometimes separately; and that it cannot be ascertained when Achaea first had a separate administration and governor.

CHAPTER XXVI.

THE WAR WITH JUGURTHA.

B.C. 117-110.

SALLUST is our authority for the war with Jugurtha. The notices in other writers are very few and worth little. Sallust probably wrote his history after retiring from his Numidian government in B.c. 45. His residence in this

country may have led him to inquire into the history of the war with Jugurtha, which was memorable both for the reverses and final success of the Roman arms. In these campaigns two Romans distinguished themselves, Marius and Sulla, whose rivalry afterwards disturbed the Roman State. The Jugurthine war was memorable also, as Sallust says, because during this period the popular party began that resistance to the domination of the nobility which led directly to the civil wars and to the confusion which was finally settled by the establishment of the power of C. Caesar Octavianus.

Sallust was in Caesar's African campaign, and he saw something of the province Africa. His government of Numidia lasted only a year, a period much too short to give him the opportunity of making himself well acquainted with the extensive country in which the campaign against Jugurtha was conducted, even if he had the inclination to explore Numidia. As to Africa, he probably saw no more of it than the parts which he visited during Caesar's short campaign. He was not well acquainted with the geography either of Numidia or Africa, as his own writings show; nor had he any talent for military affairs, of which his history also is evidence. The President de Brosses, who has written the

life of Sallust at great length, though not with much judgment, says that the historian visited all those parts of his government in which the principal events of the Jugurthine war took place, that he might not say any thing about the localities which he had not verified with his own eyes. He adds, that when Sallust is going to speak of any great action, he makes it a point to describe so well the geography of the country and the habits of the people, that we imagine ourselves, says Avienus Festus, transported to the place and witnesses of all that he describes.-We may allow Sallust the merit of writing with some vigour and conciseness; but the learned Frenchman has gone much too far in praising his geographical descriptions, which are generally very vague, and instead of proving that Sallust knew the localities, show plainly that he did not. There is some excuse for the President's judgment in the fact, that when he wrote geographical knowledge was in a very low state; and we are now better able than he was to criticize the Greek and Roman historians, by comparing their descriptions and narratives with the countries and places of which they speak, and thus bringing history, and especially military history, to that severe test to which all history must be brought before its value can be ascertained. Sallust found something about the early history of North Africa, as it was translated for him out of the Punic books of Hiempsal, King of Numidia, and father of Juba. He says however that these books were 'called' King Hiempsal's, and so he does not vouch for the authorship. What he tells us of the early history of North Africa from these books and the traditions of the people is of no value. We can only conjecture what were Sallust's authorities for the history of the Jugurthine war. M. Aemilius Scaurus, consul B.C. 115, wrote three books of Memoirs, which are useful, says Cicero, but nobody reads them. Scaurus could have told something about the intrigues with Jugurtha if he chose. P. Rutilius Rufus, who served under Metellus in the Jugurthine war, wrote in Greek a Roman history, which was brought down at least to the sixth consulship of Marius, B.c. 100; and he also wrote his own life. Sallust (B. J. c. 95) mentions the historian L. Corne