injury was then above thirty years old; and the proper time for exacting retribution for it was immediately after the victories of 437 and 426 B.C. The grant of a twenty years' truce, in 425 B.C., and its observance by the Romans, was a virtual condonation for the murder of the ambassadors; besides, the injury for which the feciales had demanded redress in 427 B.C., was, not the violation of the ambassadors, but the devastation of the Roman territory during the existence of an armistice. Whatever legitimate grounds of complaint there might be against the Veientes, it seems strange conduct on the part of the Romans to sleep over their wrongs for eighteen or twenty years, during the entire continuance of a truce granted by themselves; and at the end of this long period, to demand reparation. (122)

§ 67 As soon as the message of defiance from Veii is received, the Senate pass a decree, requiring the consular tribunes to put the question of war immediately to the vote in the popular assembly. This measure however meets with great resistance, owing to a Volscian war being in a still unsettled state. A Roman garrison, in a strong place named Verrugo, had been cut off by the Volscians in the previous year; and this act remained unpunished. Three armies were accordingly formed, and the Volscian territory was ravaged; the chief result however was, that Anxur (afterwards Tarracina) was taken,(123) and

(122) The grounds of the war against Veii are set forth by Appius Claudius, in his speech to the people, in the following passage: Septies rebellarunt, in pace nunquam fidi fuerunt, agros nostros millies depopulati sunt, Fidenates deficere a nobis coegerunt, colonos nostros ibi interfecerunt, auctores fuere contra jus gentium cædis impiæ legatorum nostrorum: Etruriam omnem adversus nos concitare voluerunt, hodieque id moliuntur; res repetentes legatos nostros haud procul afuit quin violarent; Livy, v. 4. (Compare iv. 32, where the Veientes are called hostis sexies victus.') All the wrongs here enumerated are prior to the twenty years' truce, except the renewed attempts to stir up the Etruscans against Rome, and the recent insult to the ambassadors. This latter, however, was subsequent to the demand for redress of injuries: so that the only new ground of offence during the last twenty years is contained in the vague charge of stirring up the Etruscans. The case against Veii as here represented is a cumulative one; the injuries being all of ancient dates. The statement of the causes of the war against Veii has unluckily fallen out of the text of Diodorus, xiv. 16.

(123) The capture of Anxur and the introduction of pay for the soldiers in this year are also mentioned by Diodorus, xiv. 16.

VOL. II.

U

this ancient and wealthy town was given up to be plundered by the soldiers. The division of booty among the soldiers, instead of selling it on the account of the treasury, was always a popular act. It was, with respect to the moveable property of the enemy, what an agrarian law was with respect to their lands. The Senate however followed up this popular act by a general measure, still more popular: they decreed that every citizen who served in war should henceforth receive pay. This measure was received by the plebs with unbounded delight their satisfaction and gratitude were expressed by the most unequivocal demonstrations. The announcement of the Senate was speedily followed by the imposition of a general property-tax, to which the patricians were the first to contribute; their contributions of copper money are described as having been conveyed in carts to the treasury. The plebeians soon followed their example, notwithstanding the opposition of the tribunes. A law for declaring war against the Veientes was now passed by the people; an army was levied, and the siege of Veii was commenced in form, in the year 405 B.C., being the last year but one of the Peloponnesian war.(124)

The war against Veii, therefore, like most of the Roman wars, is, notwithstanding the murder of the ambassadors, represented to us as unpopular: it is forced by the Senate upon the people, who at first refuse their consent, and at last are, as it were, cajoled into it by a dexterous concession, and by the popular arts of the patricians. Nothing can less bear the appearance of a vindictive war, commenced under the influence of resentment. The injury which is supposed to be the ground of the war, is thirty-three years old; and since its occurrence the Romans had made two truces with the Veientes, one of which lasted eighteen years. In the slow, but steady career of conquest which the Romans were pursuing, the existence of Veii, a powerful, wealthy, and fortified town, only twelve miles from Rome, though on the opposite side of the Tiber, could not but be a conspicuous object of national jealousy: what however

(124) Livy, iv. 58-61.

were the special causes which brought about the siege of Veii at this moment, we learn imperfectly from the narrative of Livy. It is likewise remarkable, that the introduction of pay for the soldiers in war, which Livy describes as having caused greater joy to the plebs than any previous measure(125)-greater even than the establishment of the tribunate-is now heard of for the first time, and that it is not mentioned as having ever been the subject of tribunician agitation. The law of debt, the monopolizing of the public lands, the exclusion of the plebeians from high offices, the non-existence of written laws, and other matters, are mentioned as plebeian grievances; but we never hear of the gratuitous service in war among them. Livy expressly states that one of the chief reasons why this concession was received with so much favour and gratitude was, that it was entirely spontaneous, and had never been demanded by the plebeians.(126) It seems strange that a concession which the Senate tender of their own accord, and which causes universal satisfaction, should never have been proposed by any tribune; it likewise seems strange that the Senate should concede a popular measure which is not asked for, while they still refuse to make other popular concessions which have been asked for, and which are extorted from them by subsequent pressure.

§ 68 Among the most important grievances of the plebeians is the management of the public lands; and this question recurs from time to time in Livy's narrative, during the interval

(125) Nihil acceptum unquam a plebe tanto gaudio traditur, iv. 60. (126) Quum commoditas juvaret, rem familiarem saltem acquiescere eo tempore, quo corpus addictum atque operatum reipublicæ esset; tum, quod ultro sibi oblatum esset, non a tribunis plebis unquam agitatum, non suis sermonibus efflagitatum, id efficiebat multiplex gaudium cumulatioremque gratiam rei; iv. 60. The only allusion to military pay as a subject of agitation is in iv. 36, where the popular candidates are represented as promising to propose a tax on the patrician occupiers of the public lands, to be applied to the pay of the soldiers (424 B.C.). No such proposal is however stated to have been made, and in fact no plebeian had been elected consular tribune before the siege of Veii. Appius Claudius is described by Dionysius as throwing out a suggestion to the same effect in a debate in the Senate at the time of the affair of Cassius (486 B.C.): he proposes to appropriate the rent of the possessors, which is in fact equivalent to a tax: τὸ δὲ προσιὸν ἐκ τῶν μισθώσεων ἀργύριον εἰς τοὺς ὀψωνιασμοὺς τῶν στραTεvoμévwv ávaλovσ0a, viii. 73. See above, p. 131.

between the decemvirate and the siege of Veii. Thus we learn that in 441 B.C., Potelius, the tribune, cannot prevail upon the consuls to propose to the Senate the division of lands among the plebs.(127) Among the popular promises of candidates in 424 B.C., are the division of public lands, and the sending out of colonies; also the imposition of a tax on the occupiers of the public lands, in order to form a fund for supplying pay to the soldiers. (128) The latter plan contemplates a rent or tax to be paid by the patricians who were in occupation of public land, as squatters, and without any legitimate title: it agrees with a suggestion said to have been made by Appius Claudius during the discussion of the original agrarian law of Cassius. (129) In 418 B.C., Lavici is conquered, and its territory is immediately divided by the Senate among 1500 settlers from Rome, who receive two jugera apiece (about one and a half acre). (130) This is an example of the division of conquered land immediately upon its acquisition, and before it has been wrongfully occupied by patricians. In the next year, however, an agrarian law of a different and a more extensive character is proposed by two tribunes of the plebs; their measure is applicable not merely to newly-conquered land, but to all land which had at any time been taken from the enemy. By this plebiscite, says Livy, the fortunes of a large part of the patricians would have been confiscated; for nearly all the Roman territory had been acquired by conquest, and all that had been sold or assigned by public authority was the exclusive property of the plebs. A fierce struggle seemed to be imminent, when Appius Claudius, the grandson of the decemvir, the youngest member of the Senate, recommended a recourse to the plan of gaining over some of the tribunes, first proposed by his ancestor. (131) This sugges

(127) Livy, iv. 12. (129) Above, n. 126. (130) Livy, iv. 47. B.C., ib. 43.

(128) Ib. c. 36.

Some agrarian agitation had taken place in 421

(131) The advice is stated to have been first given by Appius Claudius, in 480 B.C.; Livy, ii. 44, or in 481 B.C.; Dion. Hal. ix. 1. C. Claudius is reminded by Cincinnatus of his father's advice in 457 B.C., according to

tion is adopted, and when the proposal is made in the Senate, the other tribunes are appealed to, who intercede and suppress the motion, notwithstanding the reproaches of treachery to their order which they receive from their colleagues.(132) This passage illustrates the importance of the agrarian system in Rome, as a conquering state, compared with the Greek states, which were not continually enlarging their territory. It was of great moment that the lands acquired from time to time by arms, should be divided among the citizens upon equitable terms, and not unjustly and illegally appropriated by the patricians. Nevertheless, when a vicious system had been suffered to prevail, and possession of a large part of the public land had been wrongfully obtained by patricians; when this possession had been of considerable duration; when capital and labour had been expended upon the land; and when it had in many cases been the subject of sale, demise, or inheritance; a measure dispossessing the patrician occupiers, and ejecting them without compensation, could not fail to be harsh in its operation, and to engender strenuous opposition, however defective their original title might have been. A general measure of this sort, ascending to the commencement of the Roman conquests, conceding nothing to prescription, and ejecting every occupier from the public land who could not show a grant from the state, (188) whatever might have been the length of his possession, was very different from a law (such as that respecting Lavici in the preceding year), dividing the newly-acquired lands of a conquered state, from which the former owners had just been expelled, though both were called agrarian laws. Those therefore who speak, in general terms, of the justice or injustice of the agrarian laws, as one uniform class, should bear in mind that all

Dion. Hal. x. 30. If therefore these accounts are to be trusted, the memory of the advice given in 480 B.c. was kept up by subsequent allusions in 457 and 417 B.C.

(132) Livy, iv. 48.

(133) The tribunes who proposed the plan described by Livy, iv. 48, seem to have applied to the Roman state, considered as a proprietor, the modern legal maxim nullum tempus occurrit regi.