[Footnote 18:  Giraud, 163.]

[Footnote 19:  Festus, p. 209, Lindemann; Cicero, ad Att.  II, 15; Philipp.  V, 7; De Leg.  Agr.  I, 2, III, 3; De Off.  II, 22; Livy, II, 61, IV, 51, 53, VI, 4, 15; Suet.  Julius Caesar, 38; Octavius, 13, 32; Caesar, De Bell.  Civ., I, 17; Orosius, V, 18.]

[Footnote 20:  Aggenus Urbicus, p. 69, ed.  Goes.]

[Footnote 21:  Giraud, 185-187; Mommsen, I, 110; Ortolan, 227; Hunter, Roman Law, 367.]

SEC. 4.—­ROMAN COLONIES.

Probably in no other way does the Roman government so clearly reveal its nature and strength as in its method of colonization.  No other nation, ancient or modern, has ever so completely controlled her colonies as did the Roman.  Her civil law, indeed, reflected itself in both political and international relations.  In Greece, as soon[l] as a boy had attained a certain age his name was inscribed upon the tribal rolls and henceforth he was free from the potestas of his father and owed him only the marks of respect which nature demanded.  So too, at a certain age, the colonies separated themselves from their mother city without losing their remembrance of a common origin.  This was not so in Rome.  The children[2] were always under the potestas of their parents.  By analogy therefore, the colonies ought to remain subject to their mother city.  Greek colonies went forth into a strange land which had never been conquered by Hellenic arms or hitherto trod by Grecian foot.  Roman[3] colonies were established by government upon land which had been previously conquered and which therefore belonged to the Roman domain.  The Greek was fired with an ambition to obtain wealth and personal distinction, being wholly free to bend his efforts to personal ends.  Not so the Roman.  He sacrificed self for the good of the state.  Instead of the allurements of wealth he received some six jugera of land, free from taxation it is true, but barely enough to reward the hardest labor with scanty subsistence.  Instead of the hope of personal distinction, he in most cases sacrificed the most valuable of his rights, jus suffragii et jus[4] honorum and suffered what was called capitis diminutio.  He devoted himself, together with wife and family, to a life-long military service.  In fact the Romans used colonization as a means to strengthen their hold upon[5] their conquests in Italy and to extend their dominion from one centre over a large extent of country.  Roman colonies were not commercial.  In this respect they differed from those of the Phoenicians and Greeks.  Their object was essentially military[6] and from this point of view they differed from the colonies of both the ancients and moderns.  Their object was the establishment of Roman power.  The colonists marched out as a garrison into a conquered town and were exposed to dangers on all sides.  Every colony acted as a fortress to protect the boundary and keep subjects to their allegiance to Rome.  This establishment was not a matter of individual choice nor was it left to any freak of chance.  A decree of the senate decided when and where a colony should be sent out, and the people in their assemblies elected individual members for colonization.