actment of the decemviral code is in a state of hopeless con fusion. (245)

tioni suæ prætendant; c. 45. Florus alludes to the same law: ante ceteros Appius eo insolentiæ elatus est, ut ingenuam virginem stupro destinaret, oblitus et Lucretia et regum et juris quod ipse composuerat; i. 24. Compare Dirksen, Zwölf-Tafel-Gesetze, p. 425-433, who refers the law to the 6th table. Pomponius says that this rule was a re-enactment of existing law. Initium fuisse secessionis dicitur Virginius quidam, qui quum animadvertisset Appium Claudium contra jus, quod ipse ex vetere jure in duodecim tabulas transtulerat, vindicias filiæ suæ a se abdixisse, et secundum eum qui in servitutem ab eo suppositus petierat, dixisse, captumque amore virginis omne fas ac nefas miscuisse, indignatus quod vetustissima juris observantia in personâ filiæ suæ defecisset, utpote quum Brutus, qui primus Romæ consul fuit, vindicias secundum libertatem dixisset in personâ Vindicis Vitelliorum servi, qui proditionis conjurationem indicio suo detexerat,' &c.; Dig. i. 2, 2, § 24. The origin of the vindicia secundum libertatem is here referred to the fabulous slave, Vindicius. See above, p. 6, 10. If the object of the decemviral legislation was to make a general code of laws, accessible to all the people, it was imperfectly attained; for Livy says that after the burning of the city by the Gauls, the treaties and laws were collected: alia ex eis edita etiam in vulgus; quæ autem ad sacra pertinebant, a pontificibus maxime, ut religione obstrictos haberent multitudinis animos, suppressa;' vi. 1. Even this partial publication is represented as now made for the first time.

(245) Niebuhr has built up an elaborate fabric of hypotheses, with respect to the decemviral government, turning mainly upon the idea that it was intended for a permanent system, and that it brought about various fundamental changes in the constitution. These hypotheses are at the best unsupported by the historical account; in general they are inconsistent with it. For the reasons assigned by Becker, all detailed criticism of these speculations seems to me superfluous: see Becker's judicious remarks on the subject; ii. 2, p. 128-9. Even Dr. Arnold ventures to reject the conjectural reconstruction of the decemviral history proposed by his guide; vol. i. p. 295, and compare, p. 301.

PART IV. FROM THE OVERTHROW OF THE DECEMVIRAL GOVERNMENT TO THE SIEGE OF VEII.

(449-405 B.C.)

§ 55 THE events which are described as immediately following the decemviral government increase, rather than diminish, the difficulties which we have found in its explanation. The decemviral legislation was, as we have seen, a measure which originated with the plebeians; but it was turned to their oppression, and was overthrown by their resistance. It was intended to remove the inequalities between the two orders: but it seems to have added to them. The decemviral government, having sprung out of the demands of the plebs, is put down. by a plebeian secession-an extreme measure-and only one degree short of insurrection or civil war. When the plebs return, they appear to be able to dictate their own terms; the consuls chosen are devoted to their interest, and introduce important legislative measures of a popular character. only real equalization of rights effected at this time, is that which follows the decemviral legislation:() the twelve tables themselves did nothing for effacing the privileges of the patricians and the disabilities of the plebeians. There was a strong plebeian reaction after the fall of the decemvirs, which threatened to go too far; until it was stopped by the moderation and firmness of the tribune Duilius. The description of the outburst of plebeian power, of the fears of the patricians lest they should be made the subjects of vindictive impeachments, and of the self-imposed restraint of Duilius, (2) renders it quite unintelligible why the law of the two tables pro

The

(1) Livy describes the consuls Valerius and Horatius as taking the field: Rebus urbanis compositis, fundatoque plebis statu,' iii. 60. This refers to their own measures after the fall of the decemvirs. Dr. Arnold, speaking of this year, says: In fact, the popular cause was so triumphant, that all, and more than all, of the objects of the Terentilian law were now effected;' vol. i. p. 315.

(2) Livy, iii. 59; Dion. Hal. xi. 46. The last words of this chapter are imperfect. Reiske restores, αχθομένων ἤδη ταῖς σφαγαῖς τῶν πολιτῶν, καὶ πόλεμον ἐμφύλιον ἐκ τούτων γενήσεσθαι προσδοκώντων.

hibiting marriages between patricians and plebeians should have been passed after the fall of the decemvirs, or, if it had been enacted by the decemvirs, why it should not at this moment have been repealed.

We next hear that the two consuls, Valerius and Horatius, severally defeat the Equians and Volscians, and the Sabines, who had been successful against the decemvirs. The Senate refuses a triumph to the consuls, but it is granted by a vote of the people. Livy says that this was the first example of a triumph without the authority of the Senate.(3) Dionysius however states that Servilius had already triumphed in this manner, in the year 495 B.C.(4)

Notwithstanding the supposed settlement effected by the decemviral code, and the concessions made by the Valerian and Horatian laws, the contests between the patricians and plebeians proceed with unabated violence. There are disputes about the re-election of the tribunes:(5) the plebeians are insulted and wronged by the younger patricians;(6) and in the consulship of Quinctius Capitolinus and Furius (446 B.C.), when the Volscians and Æquians ravage the lands up to the Esquiline gate of the city, the people refuse to stir. After a time, Quinctius succeeds in inducing them to enlist, and a successful campaign ensues.(^)

(3) Tum primum, sine auctoritate senatus, populi jussu triumphatum est; iii. 63. Zonaras, vii. 19, states that the consuls triumphed by the vote of the people alone.

(4) vi. 23. See above, p. 60.

(5) Livy, iii. 64.

(6) Ib. 65. Livy concludes his description of the conduct of the patricians, juniors and seniors, with this remark: 'Adeo moderatio tuendæ libertatis, dum æquari velle simulando ita se quisque extollit, ut deprimat alium, in difficili est: cavendoque ne metuant homines, metuendos ultro se efficiunt; et injuriam a nobis repulsam, tanquam aut facere aut pati necesse sit, injungimus aliis.'

(7) Livy, iii. 66-70. This great defeat of the Volscians is recorded by Diod. xii. 30, who calls them Ovóλouvo. In reporting the speech of Quinctius, Livy says: In hanc sententiam locutum accipio,' c. 67, as if he followed some previous writer. With regard to the honours of the consuls Livy has the following remark: Triumphum nec ipsos postulasse, nec delatum iis ab senatu accipio, nec traditur causa spreti aut non sperati honoris. Ego quantum in tanto intervallo temporum conjicio, quum Valerio atque Horatio consulibus, qui præter Volscos et Equos Sabini etiam belli perfecti gloriam pepererant, negatus ab senatu triumphus esset, verecundiæ fuit pro parte dimidiâ rerum consulibus petere triumphum: ne

§ 56 In the next year, the consulship of Genucius and Curtius (445 B.C.), the accounts of Livy and Dionysius differ; and they differ in a remarkable point. Livy says that the tribune Canuleius proposed a law permitting the marriages of the patricians and plebeians: he adds, that all the tribunes (with only one dissentient) proposed another law, making plebeians eligible for the consulship. He reports at great length the speeches of the consuls against both laws, and the speech of Canuleius in favour of his own rogation; and he states that the Senate, partly moved by the eagerness of the plebs to obtain the repeal of the prohibition, and partly thinking that a concession of this point would render it unnecessary to concede the other, acceded to the proposal of Canuleius. () Dionysius

etiam, si impetrassent magis hominum ratio quam meritorum habita videretur;' c. 70. Dr. Arnold has the following remark upon this year: In the next year, a member of the Quinctian house was chosen consul, T. Quinctius Capitolinus. Accordingly the story of the year is made up from some of the memorials of the Quinetian family, and is a mere panegyric of the consul's great qualities in peace and in war. The real history of the year is lost almost entirely;' vol. i. p. 333. The existence of these memorials of the Quinctian family is merely an hypothesis: there is no proof of their existence.

(8) Livy, iv. 1—6. Livy, both in the speech of Canuleius, and in the subsequent answer of the consuls, treats the prohibition of marriage as having been introduced by the decemvirs: nevertheless the objections attributed to the patricians seem to imply that the barrier was of old standing. In c. 1, the rogation is described as one 'quâ contaminari sanguinem suum patres, confundique jura gentium rebantur.' Afterwards the consuls ask: quam enim aliam vim connubia promiscua habere, nisi ut ferarum prope ritu vulgentur concubitus plebis patrumque ?' c. 2. If this prohibition had only been in existence for five years, it seems ludicrous to apply this inflated language to its removal. Had the blood of the patricians been polluted, and had their marriages been no better than the copu lation of wild animals six years before? Compare iii. 47, where Virginius says: Placet pecudum ferarumque ritu promiscue in concubitus ruere ?' Niebuhr says that Livy's account of the angry opposition with which the patricians met this proposal, is unquestionably a faithful picture of the sentiments of the haughty nobles of his own day, and the deep resentment he puts into the mouth of the tribune is his own feeling. It is impossible however that all the patrician houses of the age he is describing can have looked down with such contempt on the distinguished plebeian families;' Hist. vol. ii. p. 384. The sentiments about purity of blood which Livy ascribes to the opponents of Canuleius may be suited to the patricians of the fifth century before Christ; but they are quite unsuited to the patricians of the Augustan age, whose feelings towards the plebeians might resemble those of a French noble in the last century towards a roturier, but had nothing of a religious character.

agrees with Livy as to the proposal for the admission of plebeians to the consulate, and he even mentions the name of the one dissentient tribune ;) but he says nothing of any proposal for altering the marriage law, although he describes Canuleius as taking a leading part, at the discussions in the Senate, in support of the proposal for opening the consulship to the plebeians.(10) He likewise gives a detailed account of a private meeting a sort of cabinet-council-of the leading patricians, which is convened by the consuls, and of which all the proceedings are accurately known to him :(1) Valerius and Horatius were the only senators of consular dignity who were not invited. The following is his account of the proceedings at this meeting. C. Claudius recommends the use of armed force against their political opponents; but Quinctius Capitolinus objects to civil war, and to a violation of the sanctity of the tribunes: and to this opinion the other members of the meeting accede. C. Claudius then declares that he yields to the majority; and he advises that, instead of opening the consulship to the plebeians, they should propose the substitution of six or eight military tribunes for the consuls, half of whom might be of the plebeian order. This suggestion is adopted by the entire meeting; and they then arrange the plan of the debate in the Senate, fixing the order in which the speakers are to be called on by the consuls, and the course which each of their own party is to pursue.(12) The debate in the Senate is next described. Canuleius complains of the secret meeting convened by the consuls; Genucius, the consul, defends the step which they had taken, and calls first upon Valerius and afterwards upon Horatius to declare their opinions. They pronounce themselves favourable to the admission of plebeians to the consulship; but they think the time is

(9) xi. 52.

(10) Ib. c. 57.

(11) They are described in c. 55 as οἱ πρεσβύτατοί τε καὶ κορυφαιότατοι τῶν προεστηκότων τῆς ἀριστοκρατίας συναχθέντες εἰς ἰδιωτικὸν σύλλογον ὑπὸ Twv vπáTwv avtoì Kal' javтovç. In c. 57 Canuleius complains of them as ἀπόρρητα βουλευτήρια συνάγοντας ἐν ἰδίαις οἰκίαις. Compare above, p. 186, n. 59.

(12) Dion. Hal. xi. 54-6. The threats of war in c. 54 are similarly described in Livy, iv. 1, and 7.