barbarian cavalry." In the time of Honorius, the villages, "In the fields, the rural burghs, were destitute of inhabitants. Scarcely even from a corner of the Alps could they draw soldiers; and even when enrolled, it was with the utmost difficulty that desertion could be prevented. He offered freedom and two pieces of gold each to every slave who would enlist, but he could only raise thirty thousand men in the whole empire.‡

All the ancient historians concur in representing this impossibility of finding native soldiers in its central provinces, as the main cause of the overthrow of the empire. And that this, and not the power of the barbarians, was the real cause of the destruction of the empire, is proved by the fact that, whenever they were well directed, the superiority of the legions was as clearly evinced as in the days of Marius or Cæsar. Whenever the invaders met with a steady and well-combined resistance, they were defeated without much difficulty. The victorious reigns of Claudius II., Aurelian, and Probus, prove the immense superiority of the Roman armies when properly commanded; but the custom which was constantly gaining ground, of recruiting the legions from among the barbarians, reveals the deplorable state of depopulation and weakness to which three centuries of despotism and bad administration had reduced the Empire.§

But amidst this general prostration of the political and military strength of the Roman Empire, in consequence of the decline and desolation of the country, the great towns still continued flourishing, and wealth to an extraordinary and unparalleled extent existed among the chief families, some of patrician, some of plebeian origin. That was the grand characteristic of Rome in its later days. The country, in the European part of the empire at least, was daily growing poorer; the cultivation of the fields was neglected; and the provinces, crushed under the weight of

* FINLAY, 246, 247.

"Certo e pure che verso la fine del Regno di Theodosio tutta quella parte di Lombardia che tra Milano e Bologna una di più grasse partite giacea quasi deserta et incolta. E la Campania nel regno di Napoli che e senza dubbio de piu felici terrene d'Italia era condotto a tale che Onorio dovette in un sol privilegio esentar dall ataglie piu de 500,000 giornate di terreno devenuto inutile ed infecondo."-DENINA, Revol. d'Italia, i. 241, 242.

GIBBON, vol. iii. chap. 30, p. 76. Milman's edition.

§ FINLAY, 117.

the direct taxes, which had become unavoidable, had in most cases sunk to half their former number of inhabitants. But the metropolis, whether in Italy or on the shores of the Bosphorus, was still the seat of opulence, luxury, and prosperity. The strength of Constantinople was sufficient to repel the barbarians, and prolong the life of the Empire of the East, for many centuries after it had ceased to derive effective support from any of its provinces. It is recorded by Olympiodorus, that when Rome was taken by the Goths under Alaric, it was still inhabited by 1,200,000 souls, who were maintained chiefly by the expenditure of seventeen hundred and sixty great families, many of whom had £160,000 of yearly income, equal to at least £300,000 a-year of our money, besides a third more paid in kind. Such was the luxury in which, amidst the general misery, these moneyed patricians indulged, that there were at this time no less than three thousand theatrical singers and dancers; and the number of marble statues was computed to be equal to that of human beings. And of the flourishing condition of the cities of the empire, especially those which were on the shores of the Mediterranean, even so late as the eighth century, Mr Finlay gives the following

account:

"The strongest proof of the wealth and prosperity of the CITIES of Greece, even in the last days of the empire, is to be found in the circumstance of their being able to fit out the expedition which ventured to attempt wresting Constantinople from the grasp of a soldier and statesman such as Leo the Isaurian was known to be, when the Greeks deliberately resolved to overturn his throne. The rural districts in the eighth century were reduced to a state of desolation, and the towns were flourishing in wealth. Agriculture was at the lowest ebb, and trade in a prosperous condition."+ Sismondi gives his valuable testimony to the same effect:"It was at this very time, when industry in the country was declining, that the towns of the provinces arrived at their highest degree of opulence. Adrian excited the emulation of their rich citizens, and he extended to the furthest extremities of the empire the luxury of

DENINA, i. 249.

FINLAY, 544; OLYMPIODORUS apud Photium, 197.

monuments and decorations, which had hitherto been reserved for the illustrious cities which scorned to be the depôts of the civilisation of the world."* Such, in a few words, was the condition, generally speaking, of all the part of the empire to the north of the Mediterranean, in the decaying period of its existence. The towns were everywhere flourishing; but it was in Africa, Sicily, and Spain alone that agriculture was undecayed. And the decay and ruin of rural industry, and of the inhabitants of the country to the north of the Mediterranean, left them no adequate means of resisting the attacks of the brave but artless barbarians, who there pressed upon the yielding frontiers of the empire. Even the shipping of Italy had decayed: her carrying trade had been transferred to Egypt and Asia Minor. "The naval establishments," says Gibbon, "of Misenum and Ravenna had been gradually neglected; and as the shipping and commerce of the empire were supported by commerce rather than by war, it was natural that they should most abound in the industrious provinces of Egypt and Asia."+

Coexistent with this fatal decline in the rural population and agricultural industry, was the increase of direct taxation, which was so keenly felt and loudly complained of in all the later stages of the Roman history. This is a branch of the subject of the very highest importance, because it leads to precisely the same conclusions, as to the real causes of the fall of Rome, as the others which have been already considered.

It is well known that when the Romans first conquered Macedonia, the senate proclaimed a general liberation from taxes and imposts of every kind to the Roman citizens, as the reward of their victories. Nothing could be more agreeable to a Republican state, to whom the first of objects was to lay their obligations on their neighbours. This state of matters, however, could not long continue in an old state charged with the duty, and under the necessity, of keeping up a large establishment to maintain its dominion over its subject provinces. For some time, indeed, the wealth

brought by the conquest of Asia and Egypt into the Roman treasury was so considerable that the necessity for taxes being levied on its own citizens was not felt; and as long as the people had a direct share in the government, they took care to uphold an exemption in their own favour. But when one master was given to the whole Roman world, this invidious system of one class living upon another class was ere long abandoned. "Augustus," says Gibbon, "had no sooner assumed the reins of government than he frequently intimated the insufficiency of the tributes from the provinces, and the necessity of throwing an equitable proportion of the public burdens upon Rome and Italy. In the prosecution of this unpopular design, however, he advanced with slow and cautious steps. The introduction of customs was followed. by the establishment of an excise; and the scheme of taxation was completed by an artful assessment of the real and personal property of the Roman citizens, who had been exempted from every kind of contribution for above a century and a half."*

Customs on foreign goods imported into Italy was the first species of taxation attempted on the Roman people. "In the reign of Augustus and his successors," says the same historian," duties were imposed on every kind of merchandise, which, through a thousand channels, flowed to the great centre of opulence and luxury; and in whatever manner the law was expressed, it was the Roman purchaser, and not the provincial merchant, who paid the tax. The rate of the customs varied from the eighth to the fortieth part of the value of the commodity. There is still extant a long, but imperfect, catalogue of Eastern commodities, which, about the time of Alexander Severus, were subject to the payment of duties. Precious stones, Parthian and Babylonian leather, cottons, silks, raw and manufactured, ebony, ivory, and eunuchs, were among the taxed articles. An excise also was introduced by Augustus, of one per cent on whatever was sold in the markets or by public auction; and this extended from the most considerable purchase of lands or houses, to those minute objects which commonly derive their value from their infinite multitude and daily consumption."+

* GIBBON, vol. i. chap. 6, p. 261.

+ Ibid., vol. i. chap. 6, p. 262.

But ere long these indirect taxes proved unproductive, from the decline in the produce of the mines and contraction of the currency, which will immediately be noticed, and recourse was had to the lasting scourge of direct taxes. One of five per cent on legacies and inheritances was first imposed by Augustus, and adhered to by him, in spite of the indignant murmurs of the Roman nobles and people. The rate was raised by Caracalla to a tenth of all inheritances; and, when the privilege of Roman citizenship was extended to the whole provincials of the empire, they were subjected at once both to the former burdens which they had paid as provincials, and the new tax levied on them as Roman citizens.* From that time the direct burdens became daily more oppressive, and at length proved an almost insurmountable bar to industry. "The noxious weed," says Gibbon, "sprang up with the most luxuriant growth, and in the succeeding age darkened the Roman world with its deadly shade. In the course of this history we shall be too often summoned to explain the land-tax, the capitation, and the heavy contributions in corn, wine, oil, and meat, which were exacted from the provinces for the use of the court, the army, and the capital."+

These direct taxes soon became fearfully oppressive, and it is proved, by the clearest evidence, that they were among the leading causes of the decline of the empire. "The whole landed property of the empire," says Gibbon, "without excepting the patrimonial estates of the monarch, was the object of ordinary taxation, and every new purchaser contracted the obligations of the former proprietor. An accurate survey was made of what every citizen should contribute to the public service, and this was made anew every fifteen years. The number of slaves and cattle constituted an essential part of the report; an oath was administered to the proprietors, which obliged them to disclose the true state of their affairs; and any attempt to prevaricate or elude the vigilance of the legislature was severely watched, and punished as a capital crime, which included the double guilt of treason and sacrilege. A large portion of the tribute was paid in money; and, of the current coin of the empire, gold alone could be legally accepted. The remainder of the