occupy more than a few days; although he places the election of the tribunes on the 10th of December.(254)

If such leading facts as those adverted to are variously reported; if our accounts differ as to the place where the seceders encamped, the cause of the secession, the nature of the treaty by which it was ended, (255) and the number and names of the tri

(254) According to the detailed narrative of Dionysius, the first event after the secession is, that the Senate send envoys to request the seceders to state their demands, and that no answer is given to them. The consuls then appoint a day for the comitia; the new consuls enter their office on the first of September; vi. 48. [According to this account therefore the secession took place before the 1st of September, whereas according to vii. 1, this event was after the 23rd of the same month.] As soon as the new consuls are in office they convene the Senate, and a few days afterwards (raiç iñç pipais) they convene the assembly and another meeting of the Senate; c. 67. The meetings are held, and ten ambassadors are chosen, who go to the camp the same day; c. 70. A conference immediately takes place, and some of the ambassadors return to Rome for fresh instructions; c. 88. A Senate is held, and the next day the ambassadors go out again to the camp and deliver their message. A deputation is sent from the camp to the Senate. On the following day Brutus returns to the camp, having made the treaty. Tribunes are elected, and enter on their office on the 10th of December; c. 89. This narrative implies that only a few days elapsed between the election of the consuls, and that of the tribunes; though Dionysius states it to have been more than three months. The expression ' per aliquot dies' in Livy, ii. 32, combined with the subsequent narrative, might seem to indicate that the secession was not of long duration. He speaks, however, in the next year of caritas annonæ ex incultis per secessionem plebis agris;' c. 34. See also the words of Coriolanus, lower down. Niebuhr, vol. i. p. 607, thinks that the secession could only have lasted a few days, and supposes that the length of time assigned by Dionysius was determined mainly by the time fixed for the commencement of the office of tribune in later times, combined with the outbreak of the sedition in the consulship of Virginius and Veturius. It is not improbable that the precise calculation of Dionysius was founded on these data -but both he and Livy suppose the secession to have lasted a sufficient time to prevent the land from being tilled. This supposition is quite independent of the precise calculation of Dionysius; for it accounts for the subsequent scarcity-and the scarcity is the cause of other events. Niebuhr is mistaken in thinking that Livy represents the secession as to have lasted only a few days. In his Lectures, vol. i. p. 141, he says: The secession cannot have lasted more than about a fortnight, for the city could not have held out much longer, and a famine would have occurred if the legions had remained in possession of the fields.' Both Livy and Dionysius state that the secession did produce a famine.

(255) It cannot even be said that all the accounts agree in representing the institution of the Tribunate as the result of a compact between the Senate and the seceders. For Zonaras (who seems in this transaction to follow Dio Cassius very closely) describes the agreement as limited to the settlement of the debt-question: he represents the establishment of the

bunes first appointed; and if there are further discrepancies as to the duration of the secession, and the persons by whose influence the parties were reconciled; and if we have no valid reason for preferring one account to another, how can we place the slightest reliance upon the detailed narrative of Dionysius? Although the story which he tells is not wanting in probability, it is destitute of external attestation, and has all the appearance of being an institution dramatized, like his own account of the origin of the dictatorship, and also like many of the scenes in the Cyropædia. (256) That the tribunes of the people had an origin is certain; that their office grew out of a secession, and that the secession had been caused by the law of insolvency, may have been facts handed down by an authentic oral tradition, and registered at a time when the memory of them was well preserved. Even as to these leading facts, however, historical certainty is unattainable; and it is still more uncertain whether any, and which of the other parts of the narrative are deserving of credit. (257) The fable of Menenius may be of indigenous origin; it is certainly ancient, and no such fable ever became celebrated in Greece. (258) It is well suited to the occasion of a

Tribunes as following indeed immediately upon the secession, but as a voluntary arrangement made by the plebeians among themselves; vii. 14, 15, Compare Dio Cass. xvii. 9-12.

(256) Becker, ii. 2, p. 283, n., considers this narrative as arbitrarily compounded of miscellaneous notices.

(257) Many of the narratives in the earliest history of Rome betray their fabulous nature by the contradictions and impossibilities they involve. There are none such in the account of the first secession, as given by Livy, and much more fully by Dionysius. Nor can we pronounce it to be quite impossible that a recollection of the various parties which divided the Senate, and of their spokesmen, should have been preserved; although unquestionably there were no traces of it in the oldest annals. And yet the internal connexion here merely proves the intelligence of the annalist who drew up the story now adopted, as is clear from the irreconcilable contradictions between it and other stories, which at one time were no less in vogue; Hist. vol. i. p. 603. In this, as in other passages, it is difficult to understand what Niebuhr means by annals' and annalists,' or in what manner he conceives the received historical accounts of this period to have originated. Dr. Arnold says of the first secession: The particulars of this second revolution are as uncertain as those of the overthrow of the monarchy; Hist. of Rome, vol. i. p. 145.

(258) Dionysius says: τελευτῶν δὲ τῆς δημηγορίας λέγεται μυθόν τινα εἰπεῖν εἰς τὸν Αἰσώπειον τρόπον συμπλάσας ; vi. 83. If the apologue of Menenius was delivered on this occasion, we must suppose the sopian fable to have

secession, actual or intended, of the poor from the rich; but how far its connexion with the name of Menenius and the secession in question may rest on an authentic tradition, ascending to the year 494 B.C., it would be presumptuous to decide. It may be added that Diodorus differs from all the other authorities; for he appears to represent the tribunitian office as created at the secession during the decemvirate, in the year 449 B.C., and as a result of the compact then made between the plebeian seceders on Mount Aventine and the patricians. (259)

§ 18 As soon as the dangerous schism in the Roman community is repaired, the attention of the state is directed to foreign wars. The plebeians are now willing to obey the consuls, and everything is speedily made ready. Cominius marches against the Volscians, and takes the towns of Longula and Polusca. He likewise attacks and takes the town of Corioli, and afterwards defeats the Antiates. In the attack of Corioli, a young patrician named C. Marcius greatly distinguished himself. Splendid rewards were assigned to him by Cominius, the chief part of which he declines, and he was afterwards known by the appellation of Coriolanus. (260) Spurius Cassius, the other consul,

been known at Rome in the year 494 B.C. The death of Æsop is placed above half a century before this time. The fable of the Belly and Feet (Koiλía Kai Tódec) in the Esopian collection resembles that of Menenius, and may be of native growth, though we have no means of determining its age (Fab. 202, p. 127, ed. Coraes.; Fab. 286, ed. Tauchnitz). A similar fable is in the collection of Syntipas (ib. ed. Coraes.), which is translated from the Syriac. Max. Tyr. Diss. xxi. vol. i. p. 404, ed. Reiske, has a fable like that of Menenius, which he supposes Esop might have made, but he speaks as if it were of his own invention.

(259) Diod. xii. 25. The dates of Diodorus for this period of Roman history differ from the ordinary chronology. He places this secession in the second year of the Decemvirate, which, according to his synchronism, agrees with the archonship of Lysanias, Olymp. 84.2-443 B.C.

(260) Dion. Hal. vi. 91-4; Livy, ii. 33; Plut. Cor. 8-11. The name is enlarged on in the last chapter of Plutarch. Livy and Dionysius agree in these events: both mention Longula and Polusca, as well as Corioli. Niebuhr thinks that this account of the origin of the name Coriolanus is fabulous, and taken from a heroic poem; Hist. vol. ii. p. 243; but it is as well attested as any other fact at this period of Roman history. Compare Florus, i. 11; Zon. vii. 16. He also says, ib., p. 103, that Corioli could not at this time have belonged to the Antiates, or have been attacked by the Romans, because it is in the list of Latin towns, in Dion. Hal. v. 61. This is an inconsistency which we cannot explain; but we have no better reason for rejecting one fact than the other.

who remained at Rome, is related to have dedicated a temple to Ceres, Liber, and Libera, which had been vowed by Postumius the dictator, at the battle of Regillus, and afterwards let out by him to contractors. It stood at the extremity of the Circus Maximus. (261) He likewise concluded an important treaty with the Latins, by which their relations to Rome were regulated. This treaty was inscribed on a brazen column, which was extant in the time of Cicero. (262) The year was ended by the death of Menenius Agrippa; he received the honours of a funeral at the public expense.(263)

The disagreement of our informants leaves us in doubt as to the mode by which the grievance of the plebs with respect to the law of insolvency was remedied; whether they obtained a universal remission of debts, or merely a protection against future oppression in the tribunate. The question at issue between the two orders is however represented as having been now practically settled; for no allusion is made, in the following years, to this particular grievance, although the conflicts between the patricians and plebeians continue with unabated force. All attempts to define with precision the Roman law of debt at this period are necessarily futile ;(264) there are no extant materials upon which

(261) Dion. Hal. vi. 17, 94. See Becker, vol. i. p. 471.

(262) Livy, ii. 33, says that the exploits of C. Marcius so much obscured the fame of the Consul Cominius that his presence in this expedition would have been forgotten, if his absence from Rome had not been perpetuated by the fact that the treaty with the Latins, recorded on a brazen column, was concluded by Cassius alone. Cicero, Pro Balb. 23, mentions it as extant in his time. See Becker, vol. i. p. 18. The treaty is set out by Dion. Hal. vi. 95. A former treaty with Tarquin II. is mentioned, ib. iv. 48. Compare Niebuhr, Hist. vol. ii. p. 23; Lect. vol. i. p. 125. Above, vol. i. p. 511.

Niebuhr supposes that, according to the original version of the story, the expedition against Antium was commanded by Coriolanus, and that Post. Cominius was subsequently introduced as commander, because his name did not appear in the Roman record of the Latin treaty. He believes that the real cause of the absence of Cominius was that he was swearing to the treaty among the Latins; Hist. vol. ii. p. 38, 104. Such conjectures, however, are too uncertain to have any historical value. Much doubtful speculation concerning the Latin League, and its relation to Rome at this time, may be seen in Niebuhr, Hist. vol. ii. p. 16-87.

(263) Dion. Hal. vi. 96; ix. 27; Livy, ib.; Script. de Vir. Ill. 18. (264) See the explanations attempted by Niebuhr, Hist. vol. i. p. 575580. Savigny, über das altrömische Schuldrecht, in his Vermischte

a safe conclusion can be founded. It is impossible to ascertain what was, in the year 494 B.C., the creditor's remedy against the insolvent debtor before judgment, as distinguished from his remedy after judgment, and to define the technical difference between the nexus and the addictus, or between the debt arising from the principal loan, and that arising from unpaid interest. As to the general state of the case, both Dionysius and Livy are agreed. (265) They both represent the insolvent debtor as becoming the slave of his creditor, and as subject to all the severe consequences of that status; viz., the liability to compulsory labour, to imprisonment, corporal restraint and punishment, and to being sold, both the debtor himself and children, by his master. The same law, and the same prevalence of debt among the poor towards the rich, is described by Plutarch as existing in Attica at the time of Solon; and this eminent lawgiver is reported to have granted a general remission of debts, and to have abolished the practice of borrowing on the person.(66)

Schriften, vol. ii. p. 396-470; Rein, Römisches Privatrecht, p. 313-8; and Mr. Long's art. on Nexum, in Dr. Smith's Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Antiquities. The hypothesis of Niebuhr is refuted by Savigny; and other differences of opinion occur between the principal modern writers on the subject, for the settlement of which no sufficient information exists. A summary of Savigny's Dissertation is given in Grote's Hist. of Greece, vol. iii. p. 211-5.

(265) The old centurion, in Livy, ii. 23, describes himself as ductum ab creditore, non in servitium, sed in ergastulum et carnificinam esse.' The decree in Servilius, in c. 24, protects the children and grandchildren of persons engaged in military service-(compare Dion. Hal. vi. 20)—which implies that, without this protection, they might be seized and detained by the creditor. The slavery of the insolvent creditor, and the liability of his body, as well as his goods, is distinctly pointed out in Dion. Hal. v. 69. The measure of the Senate for suspending the action of the courts, ib. v. 69, vi. 22, implies that the remedy of the creditor could not be enforced without a judicial decree. The slavery, hard work, bodily restraint, and punishments of the insolvent debtors are described, ib. vi. 26, 27, 79. The slavery of the debtors is recognised in the speech of Menenius, ib. c. 83. The seizure of the debtor's children is mentioned, ib. c. 26. The popular laws of king Servius respecting ovμBodala are stated by Dionysius to have been repealed by Tarquin II., and to have been restored by the first consuls: iv. 43; v. 2. These appear to be the vouoi avvaλλaкTikoì, mentioned in iv. 13; but whether laws of debt are intended, does not appear.

(266) Plut. Sol. 13, says: üñaç ó ôñμoç év vñóxpewę twv πλovoiov. The remedial measure of Solon is thus described; πολίτευμα γράψας τὰ μὲν ὑπάρχοντα τῶν χρεῶν ἀνεῖσθαι, πρὸς δὲ τὸ λοιπὸν ἐπὶ τοῖς σώμασι μηδένα δανείζειν, c. 15. Androtion, however, and others, denied that Solon enacted any