Rome, the mother and mistress of the Empire, stood by herself. She was the centre, to which all the rest looked up. Next her, sharing in many respects her privileged position, was Italy. Outside this inner circle came the directly subject lands and communities, which were strictly under the sway (in dicione) of the Roman people. Outside these again came the lands and communities which, while really under the sovranty of Rome, preserved their independence and were not called subjects, but federate states and allies. And in each of these circles there were various kinds and subdivisions, according to the mode of their administration or the limits imposed on their self-government. Thus the subjects of the Roman Empire were almost as heterogeneous in their political relations to their mistress as in race and language. It is to be observed that by ‘Roman Empire’, we mean more than the Romans in strict speech meant by imperium Romanum. We mean not only the provinces, but the independent allied states and client kingdoms, in which the people were not the subjects of the Roman people and the land was not the property of the Roman state. These federate and associated states were regarded legally as outside the Roman fines, although the foedus or alliance really meant that they were under the sovranty of Rome and the continuation of their autonomy depended solely on her will. There was no proper word in Latin to express the geographical circle which included both the direct and the indirect subjects. Perhaps the nearest expression wasorbis terrarum, “the world”, which often seems equivalent to “the Empire”. For Roman law regarded all territory, which was not either Roman or belonging to someone whose ownership Rome recognized, as the property of no man,—outside the world.
The chief mark of distinction between the autonomous, and not autonomous communities was that the former taxed themselves, whereas the latter were taxed by Rome. In both cases there were exceptions, but this was the general rule. And the land of the provincial communities which were not autonomous belonged to Rome, whereas the land of the autonomous states was not Roman. Originally, after the conquest of her earliest provinces, Rome had not appropriated the land; but this was a theoretic mistake which she afterwards corrected when C. Gracchus organized Asia. Henceforward all provincial territory was regarded as in the ownership of the Roman people. The Roman people might let the land anew to the former possessors at a fixed rent, and in most cases this was done. Thus the principle was that the provincial subjects occupied as tenants the lands which they or their ancestors once owned. This rent wag called tributum, or stipendium.
(a). The greater number of provincial communities in the time of Augustus were civitate stipendiariae. The legal condition of these subjects was that of peregrini dediticii, but they were not called by this name. They were under the control of the governor of the province to which they belonged.
(b). Throughout the provinces there was a multitude of cities which possessed full Roman citizenship, and their number was continually increasing. But although, as far as personal rights were concerned, these cities were on a level with the cities of Italy, they were worse off in two particulars. They were obliged to pay tribute. The reason of this anomaly was the theoretic principle that provincial territory could not be alienated by its owner, the Roman people. The ager publicus populi Romani beyond the sea could not become ager privatus ex iure Quiritium. In other words, a provincial of Narbo, although a Roman citizen, could not be a quiritary possessor of land in the Narbonese territory. He could only hold land of the Roman people, and must therefore pay rent for it. In the case, however, of some favored communities, this principle was departed from as early as the time of Augustus. The privilege took one of two forms, either a grant of immunity from tribute or the bestowal of ius Italicum. The latter form, which was the more common, placed the territory of the community which received it in the same position as the territory of Italy, and made it capable of quiritary ownership. The provincial cities which possessed ius Italicum marked their position by the external sign of a statue of a naked Silenus with a wine-skin on his shoulder, which was called Marsyas. This custom was imitated from the Marsyas which stood in the Roman Forum, as a symbol of the capital city. Besides being tributary, the provincial communities of Roman citizens were, like the peregrine communities, subject to the interference of the Roman governor.
It is to be observed that these communities were either coloniaeor municipia. In the course of Italian history the word municipiumhad completely changed its meaning. Originally it was applied to a community possessing ius Latinum, and also to the civitas sine suffragio, and thus it was a term of contrast to those communities which possessed full Roman citizenship. But when in the course of time the civitates sine suffragio received political rights and the Roman states received full Roman citizenship, and thus the municipium proper disappeared from Italy, the word was still applied to those communities of Roman citizens which had originally been either Latin municipia or independent federate states. And it also, of course, continued to be applied to cities outside Italy which possessed ius Latinum. It is clear that originally municipium andcolonia were not incompatible ideas. For a colony founded with ius Latinum was both a municipium and a colonia. But a certain opposition arose between them, and became stronger whenmunicipium came to be used in a new sense. Municipium is only used of communities which existed as independent states before they received Roman citizenship, whether by the deduction of a colony or not. Colonia is generally confined to those communities which were settled for the first time as Roman cities, and were never states before. Thus municipium involves a reference to previous autonomy.
(c). Besides Roman cities, there were also Latin cities in the provinces. Originally there were two kinds of ius Latinum, one better and the other inferior. The old Latin colonies possessed the better kind. The inferior kind was known as the ius of Ariminum, and it alone was extended to provincial communities. When Italy received Roman citizenship after the Social war, the better kind of ius Latinum vanished for ever, and the lesser kind only existed outside Italy. The most important privilege which distinguished the Latin from peregrine communities was that the member of a Latin city had a prospect of obtaining full Roman citizenship by holding magistracies in his own community. The Latin communities are of course autonomous and are not controlled by the provincial governor; but like Roman communities they have to pay tribute for their land, which is the property of the Roman people, unless they possess immunity or ius Italicum as well as ius Latinum.
(d). Outside Roman territory and, formally, independent allies of Rome, though really her subjects, are the free states, civitates liberae, whether single republics, like Athens, or a league of cities, like Lycia. Constitutionally they fall into two classes, (1) civitates liberae et foederatae, or simply foederatae, (2) civitates (sine foedere) liberae (et immunes). States of the first class were connected with Rome by a foedus, which guaranteed them perpetual autonomy. In the case of the second class no such foedus existed, and their autonomy, which was granted by a lex or senatus consultum, could at any moment be recalled. Otherwise the position of the two classes did not differ. The sovran rights of these free states were limited in the following ways by their relation to Rome. They were not permitted to have subject allies standing to themselves in the same relation in which they stood to Rome. They could not declare war on their own account; whereas every declaration of war and every treaty of peace made by Rome was valid for them also, without even a formal expression of consent on their part. Some of the free states, such as Athens, Sparta, Massilia—seem to have been exempted by the treaty from the burden of furnishing military contingents, both under the Republic and under the Empire. Others, on the other hand, were bound by treaty to perform service of this kind; thus Rhodes contributed a number of ships every year to the Roman fleet. It is probable that the communities which were established as federate or Latin states under the Principate, were subject to conscription. Theoretically, all the autonomous states should have been exempt from tribute, as their land was not Roman; but there were exceptions to this rule, and some free cities—for example, Byzantium,— paid under the Principate a yearly tributum.
(e). The position of the client kingdoms was in some respects like that of the free autonomous states, but in other respects different. Both were allied with Rome, but independent of Roman governors. Both the free peoples who managed their own affairs, and the kings who ruled their kingdoms, were socii of the Roman people; and the land of both was outside the boundaries of Roman territory. But whereas, in the case of the civitates foederatae, the Roman people entered into a permanent relation with a permanent community, in the case of kingdoms the relation was only a personal treaty with the king, and came to an end at his death. Thus, when a client king died, Rome might either