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 Esop is placed above half a century before this time. The fable of the Belly and Feet (Koiλia 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.(266)

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 ovußódaia 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 avvaλλaktikoì, mentioned in iv. 13; but whether laws of debt are intended, does not appear.

(266) Plut. Sol. 13, says: araç ò dñμos ñv ¿ñóxρews τwv πλovoíwv. 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

:

According to the account of Plutarch, the Megarian people, at a season of democratic licence, after the expulsion of Theagenes, exacted contributions from the rich, and even passed a decree by which money-lenders were compelled to refund to their debtors the interest which had been already paid. (267) It is difficult for us to conceive a state of society in which the poor are borrowers of money on a large scale in modern states borrowers always have property in possession or expectancy, though it may be ultimately exhausted, and they may become insolvent. (268) The poor Athenians, in Solon's time, are described partly as cultivators paying, like métayers, a sixth portion of the produce of the soil in the shape of rent, and having fallen into arrear with their landlords; partly, as persons who had borrowed money upon their corporal security.(269) The plebeian class of general measure for the remission of debts, and affirmed that the relief was given by lowering the interest of money; Plut. ib. The extant fragments of Solon mention poor freemen, who had been sold as slaves, some justly, some unjustly, and carried in bonds to foreign countries. He restored many of these, after they had become wanderers, and could no longer speak the Attic tongue, to their own country; he likewise liberated many from slavery who had remained at home; Fragm. 15, v. 23; Fr. 28, v. 6, ed. Gaisford. Unfortunately, there are no extant remains of any Roman poet, cotemporary with the first secession. According to the account of the Decemviral law of debt, in Gellius, N. A. xx. 1, the insolvent debtor, after his arrest, was produced on three successive nundina before the prætor, and if the money was not paid on the third period, he was liable to be put to death, or sold beyond the Tiber. The remains of this law are collected and illustrated by Dirksen, Uebersicht der Zwölf-Tafel-Fragmente, p. 231-62.

(267) Plut. Quæst. Gr. c. 18. A daughter of Theagenes was married to Cylon, who was an Olympic victor in 640 B.C., and whose attempt upon the acropolis of Athens is placed by Clinton at 620 B.C. Compare Grote, vol. iii. p. 60. The story is uncertain; the word makiτokia is probably ancient.

(268) When the poor borrow by pawning their goods, they give a valid security for the debt. This species of borrowing seems to have been unknown to the ancients. Concerning the institution of Monts de Piété, see Beckmann's Hist. of Inventions, vol. iii. art. Lending Houses. Plato, Rep. viii. 9, p. 555, has a striking passage, in which he describes the political discontent caused by the insolvency of debtors, and the pressure of money-lenders. In his picture, however, the debtors are rich oligarchs who have been reduced to insolvency by indolence and profusion-men like Catiline and his associates (Sallust. Cat. 33). According to the law of England, the king may, by his writ of protection, privilege a defendant from all personal suits for one year at a time, in respect of his being engaged in his service out of the realm; Blackstone, Com. vol. iii. p. 289. In former times, protections against creditors were often granted in the continental states; but chiefly, I believe, to men of rank, who had outrun their means. (269) Plut. Sol. 13.

Roman cultivators were owners of the soil, not tenants; they tilled it by their own labour, and that of their sons, without the assistance of slaves, (270) but without the payment of any rent; hence the debts of the plebeians at the time of the first secession are described by the Roman historians as arising exclusively from loans advanced to them by the rich patricians. (271) These debts were, according to Dionysius, all cancelled by a single enactment, and the rights of all private creditors extinguished. An interference of the Roman state for the settlement of private debts is likewise mentioned nearly a century and a half later. In the year 352 B.C. five commissioners were appointed, who, partly by advances of public money, and partly by reducing the amounts due according to an equitable estimate, extinguished a great mass of private debt.(272) Measures of this kind bear little resemblance to acts of public bankruptcy, or repudiation, or depreciation of the currency, affecting the repayment of interest to the national creditor, with which they have been compared. Niebuhr indeed seems to consider their resemblance to consist in their both conferring a benefit on the owners and cultivators of the soil, at the cost of the moneyed interest.(273) But the patri

(270) They were, according to the expression of Dionysius, avrovoyoi (vii. 58), that is to say, they did not employ slave-labour. Compare Plutarch, Cor. 24. Above. vol. i. p. 418, n. 31.

(271) The patricians are represented throughout as being interested in the recovery of the debts, and the plebeians in their remission. See Niebuhr, vol. i. p. 374. Livy says, at the time of the Licinian rogations, more than a century later: An placeret fœnore circumventam plebem corpus in nervum ac supplicia dare; et gregatim quotidie de foro addictos duci, et repleri vinctis nobiles domos? et ubicumque patricius habitat, ibi carcerem privatum esse ;' vi. 36.

(272) Livy, vii. 21. The nature and policy of a measure for the remis sion of debts are fully discussed, according to the ideas of Dionysius, in the debate, in v. 63–8. In c. 69, he describes different modes of affording relief. One is, that the property of insolvent debtors should be given up to the creditors, but that their bodies should remain free. Another is, that their debts should be discharged by the state. A third is, that prisoners of war should be assigned to the creditors as substitutes for their debtors.

(273) If a person approves of Sully's diminishing the interest payable to the public creditors, who were swallowing up the revenues of the state, and of his deducting the usurious profit they had long enjoyed from the principal,--if he is aware how lowering the interest, or the capital of its debt, or the standard of its currency, has been the only means whereby more than one state has been able to save itself from the condition in which