cians were as much landowners as the plebeians, and the patricians are described as the money-lending class. (274)

We shall see, moreover, in a future chapter, that, although the complaints of the plebeians respecting the law of debt are represented as being removed by the settlement made at the first secession, they recur in the subsequent period, at various intervals; and that the main grievance, the slavery of the insolvent debtor, was not abolished till the Second Samnite War. (326 B.C.) (275)

the whole produce of the ground and of labour would have fallen into the hands of the fundholders; if he knows how speedily and easily wounds sustained by this class in their property heal; if he considers this, when reviewing the history of the states of antiquity, which were drained by private usury, he will be favourable to measures which tend to preserve hereditary property and personal freedom, as Solon was;' Hist. vol. i. p. 611.

(274) Qui vero se populares volunt, obeamque causam aut agrariam rem tentant, ut possessores suis sedibus pellantur, aut pecunias creditas debitoribus condonandas putant; ii labefactant fundamenta reipublicæ ;' Cicero, de Off. ii. 22. Tabulæ vero novæ quid habent argumenti, nisi ut emas meâ pecuniâ fundum: eum tu habeas, ego non habeam pecuniam ?' ib. c. 23. In these passages, Cicero lays down the general rule about the remission of debts, without adverting to those special circumstances, which, in certain critical seasons, may have rendered such a measure expedient. Our knowledge of the state of Attica in the time of Solon prevents us however from forming any other judgment of his measure for the relief of debtors beyond that which is founded on his description of its results. With respect to the causes and extent of the prevalence of debt among the Roman plebeians, at the time of the first secession, and the measures adopted for relieving it, our information is still more imperfect.

(275) Below, ch. xiii. § 8, 38.

PART II.-FROM THE FIRST SECESSION TO THE

TERENTILLIAN ROGATION.

(493-462 B.C.)

§ 19 THE first secession is marked by Niebuhr as a great epoch in the Roman history. From this point, he thinks, a true narrative of events may, by a process of conjectural combination, be recovered from the extant accounts, though these are delivered to us by the ancient historians in a confused and distorted state.(1) There is however nothing to indicate any

...

(1) The first volume of Niebuhr's History ends with the secession and the institution of the tribunes. In the Preface to his second volume, he says: I saw clearly that, in spite of all scepticism, a critical examination of the facts would enable me to restore and establish a certain and credible history from the epoch at which this volume begins. . . . In like manner, I perceived that the changes in the constitution might be traced step by step; p. vi. In the Introduction, he subsequently states the same view with greater fulness: It was one of the most important objects of the first volume to prove that the story of Rome under the kings was altogether without historical foundation. I have sifted the legends which have taken the place of history: such fragments of the same sort as lay scattered about, I have collected, with the view of restoring the manifold forms they once bore; though with no thought that this could bring us nearer to historical knowledge. Even Fabius beyond doubt knew nothing more [of the time of the kings] than the story that has come down to us: and it would hardly have been possible for him to find any authentic records, unless in the writings of foreign nations; which he could never have reconciled with his own story, or made any use of. On the other hand, his age was in possession of a real history, though in many parts tinged with fable, since the insurrection of the commonalty [the first secession, 494 B.c.]. And though this has only reached us in a very defective state, disfigured by arbitrary transformations, yet from this time forward it becomes my cheering task to undertake the restoration of a genuine, connected, substantially perfect history;' vol. ii. p. 1. Historical criticism, by merely lopping off what is worthless, replacing tradition on its proper footing, demonstrating its real dignity, and thus securing it from ridicule and censure (?) will render the story of Rome during the period following the league with the Latins [493 B.c.] no less authentic and substantial than that of many much later periods, where we are in like manner left without contemporary records; ib. p. 15. With regard to these later periods, it should however be remarked, that although the contemporary histories are not now extant, they were extant when the accounts now extant were composed. (See above, ch. ii.) In his Lectures on Roman History, he places the epoch of substantially true history immediately before the first secession. This battle [of Regillus, 496 B.C.] forms the close of the lay of the Tarquins. The earliest period of Roman history is thus terminated, and a new era opens upon us;' vol. i. p. 124. In the history of the period which now follows, we find ourselves upon real historical ground: we may hence

6

change in the external testimony to the occurrences beginning from this period. We have no reason for supposing that the events of the fifteen years after the secession are better attested than the events of the fifteen years before the secession; except that, being somewhat later, they are somewhat more likely to have been handed down faithfully by oral tradition. With respect to the internal character of the narrative, we shall find, as we proceed, little improvement, until we reach the burning of the city; from which era Livy dates a more regular preservation of the contemporary historical records.

For a period of five years immediately following the secession, the history turns chiefly upon the acts of C. Marcius Coriolanus; whose drama consists of two acts; the first ending with his punishment, the second with his death. It is narrated at great length by Dionysius, and very briefly by Livy; so that the events which fill the seventh and the chief part of the

forth speak with certainty of men and events, although now and then fables were still introduced into the Fasti. That errors did creep in is no more than the common lot of all human affairs, and we must from this point treat the history of Rome like every other history, and not make it the subject of shallow scepticism to which it has already been too much sacrificed;' ib. p. 126; and see p. 141.

In his Lectures on Ancient History, he draws a similar line: 'If we divide Roman history into its elements, into what was originally contained in the annals, and into ancient lays, much of which ought not to be disregarded; and if we separate the elements from the falsifications and interpolations of later times, we shall have, from the time of the first secession, and even from a somewhat earlier point, a history, the authenticity of which can be more easily restored the more deeply we study it, without having recourse to invention. It is not however the narratives that have come down to us that are authentic; but the narratives contain the authentic history, and it is our part to discover it;' vol. i. p. 190, ed. Schmitz.

According to Niebuhr, therefore, the history of the first five centuries of Rome is composed of three periods. First: the purely mythical, or fabulous period, comprising the reigns of Romulus and Numa. Secondly; the mythico-historical period, in which truth is blended with fiction, beginning with the reign of Tullus Hostilius, and ending at the First Secession, 494 B.C. Thirdly; the substantially historical period, beginning at the First Secession. With respect to the commencement of the mythico-historical period, and its character, see Niebuhr, Hist. vol. i. p. 247; and above, vol. i. p. 125, 529. It will be observed that the distinctions between these three periods rest on the internal character of the narrative, not on any differences of external attestation. Schwegler, vol. i. p. 579, follows Niebuhr, in making the purely historical character of the Roman annals commence from about the time of the First Secession.

eighth book of Dionysius, in Livy occupy only seven chapters.(2) Plutarch's life of Coriolanus is principally abridged from the history of Dionysius, and the extant account in Appian's Roman history is derived from the same source.

The following is the substance of the history of this period as narrated in the extant accounts. Under the new consuls, T. Geganius and P. Minucius (who appear to enter on their offices on the first of September), (3) a great scarcity prevails at Rome. This scarcity is stated by Dionysius to have been caused by the secession of the plebs, which lasted from the end of September' to the end of December, and prevented the land from being tilled and the seed sown at the proper season. Livy, without specifying the duration of the secession, says that it was the cause of the land remaining uncultivated, and of the consequent scarcity.(4) The scarcity, it may be observed, is represented as falling in the right year; the accounts of our historians are chronologically consistent; for the harvest of the year of Virginius and Veturius, ending at September 494 B.C. (in which the secession began), would have sufficed for the year of Cominius and Cassius, who were elected during the secession, and whose consulship lasted till September 493 B.C.; and it would not have been till the following consulship, ending September 492 B.C., that the effects of the land being untilled during the secession would have been felt. The Senate takes measures for supplying the people with food; but not, according to our

(2) The seventh book of Dionysius corresponds to three chapters of Livy; viz., ii. 34-6. The first sixty-two chapters of the eighth book correspond to Livy, ii. 37-40. Niebuhr, Hist. vol. ii. n. 529, remarks that the account of Coriolanus in Dionysius is spun out by rhetorical details, so as to be the worst part of his whole history; and he contrasts it with Livy's concise and admirable representation. The really important question however is not whether the narrative of Dionysius is wearisome, but whether it is fictitious. Little can be said of the sources of Plutarch's Life: see Heeren, De Fontibus et Auctoritate Vit. Parall. Plutarchi, p. 117.

(3) Cominius and Cassius are stated by Dionysius to enter on their office on the calends of September, θᾶττον ἢ τοῖς προτέροις ἔθος ἦν, vi. 49 ; which seems to imply that the subsequent consuls commenced their term of office at the same time.

(4) Dion. Hal. viii. 1, 24, 28; Livy, ii. 32; above, p. 82, n. 254; Plut. Cor. 12.

historians, until the scarcity has begun. No reliance was placed on private trade; but envoys were sent to Etruria, to the Pomentine plain and Cumæ, and to Sicily, in order to buy up corn at the public expense. The fate of these envoys was different. Those sent to Etruria were able to procure a supply of some inferior sorts of grain, which was brought down the Tiber, and lasted for a short time. (5) Those who visited the Pomentine plain, near Suessa Pometia, were, through the influence of some of the Tarquinian exiles, attacked by the Volscians; and were glad to escape with their lives, having been plundered of the public money which they had brought for making their purchases. (") The envoys to Cuma were not more fortunate. This town had become the refuge of the Romans attached to the cause of their ejected kings: it was the Coblentz of the Tarquinian emigration. The Roman exiles, who dwelt here under the protection of the despot Aristodemus Malacus, first requested his permission to put the envoys to death. When this application was refused, they set up a claim against Rome for the restitution of their confiscated property, and called upon Aristodemus to decide the question. The envoys said that they had received no powers from the Senate to represent their state for this purpose; but, seeing that the despot was disposed to favour the other party, they agreed to give security for their appearance; and they shortly afterwards escaped, leaving their slaves, beasts of burden, and money, in the hands of the Cumans. Livy agrees in representing the envoys to Cuma as unsuccessful, and he connects the failure of their mission with Tarquin; but the cause which he assigns for it is quite different. The corn, he says, had been purchased, and was on board: but

(5) Keyxpòs and (éa, according to Dion. Hal. vii. 12, that is, millet, and rye, or some other coarse grain. In the Odyssey, iv. 41, zea is given to horses, and white barley is mixed with it; which seems to imply that it is an inferior grain to barley; see ib. 604. Compare Plin. N. H. xviii. 19.

(6) Dion. Hal. vii. 2. It does not appear where he supposes these 'Roman exiles' to be resident. Livy says that, in the Volscian and Pomptine country the people would not sell, and the persons of the envoys were in danger; ii. 34.

(7) Dion. Hal. vii. 2, 12.