Page:American Historical Review, Volume 12.djvu/361

 REVIEWS OF BOOKS GENERAL BOOKS AND BOOKS OF ANCIENT HISTORY Studies of Roman Imperialism. By W. T. Arnold, M.A. Edited by Edward Fiddes, M.A. With Memoir of the Author by Mrs. Humphry Ward and C. E. Montague. (Manchester, England : The University Press. 1906. Pp. cxxiii, 281.) The historical sketches which this volume contains were intended to serve as chapters in a history of the early Roman Empire. Before the author's plan could be brought to completion he died, and these Studies, introduced by a memoir from the hand of Mrs. Humphry Ward, his sister, and of Mr. Montague, his colleague on the editorial staff of the Manchester Guardian, are now published without change. Few people were aware of the services which Arnold rendered to the public, and of his record as a journalist, for he held the opinion that " there is no limit to what a man can do who does not care who gains the credit for it ". The important work which he did for the world in this unselfish way and his rare personal qualities are finely set forth in the sketch which his sister and his friend have drawn of his life. The seven historical essays which Arnold left behind him deal with two general topics, the home' government and the provinces. In the chapters of the first group constitutional and political questions are dis- cussed; in the second the geography and conditions of life in the prov- inces are treated. This natural division of the material has not been properly recognized in the arrangement of the chapters ; and the re- viewer would advise the reader of the book to read chapter v., on " The Domestic Policy of Augustus," immediately after chapters i. and 11., which deal with " The Foundations of the Imperial Power " and with " The Senate." These three studies are written in a clear, forceful style and give a well-proportioned account, which is sound in the main, of the institutions of the early empire. The author was apparently under the spell of Mommsen's Staatsrccht, and does not seem to have been aware, when the chapters were written, of subsequent discussions later than Momm- sen's work which have led us to modify that writer's view at certain important points. The treatment of imperial finances (pp. 57-59) is especially open to criticism. Eg>-pt did not form part of the emperor's patrimonium, and the reviewer cannot accept as true the statement (p. 58) that " the distinction between the two treasuries [i. e., the aerarium and the iiscus'] seems to have been little more than nominal." The Senate continued to have a real control over the aerarium under Au- (351)