quite palpable. The occurrences of the first and of the CHAP II. the revolt In the first place the date of the outbreak of the plebeian Date revolt is made to coincide with the death of Tarquinius, assigned to not on the ground of anything like a trustworthy tradition, of the but because it seemed plausible to suppose that, during the plebs. life-time of the expelled tyrant, the patricians would avoid everything that could create discontent among the plebeians and make them regret the monarchy. It was therefore assumed that, as soon as Tarquin died, the systematic oppression began which drove the plebeians to resistance and mutiny. It is hardly necessary to remark that this calculation is very flimsy; that too little time is given for the sudden cruelty of the patricians to produce an effect, and that, after all, even the date of the death of Tarquin is quite uncertain. On the whole, the chronology of this period is in a state of confusion from which no ingenuity is likely ever to rescue it.' The locality where the insurgent plebs assembled, and where peace was concluded with the patricians, is perhaps 1 Compare Sir G. C. Lewis, Credibility, ii. 75. Schwegler, Röm. Gesch., ii. 98,206. Mommsen, Röm. Gesch., i. 273; English translation, 279. The place of sees sion. BOOK Number of the tribunes. Mode of electing the tribunes. a matter of indifference in the history of the secession. But it awakens an uncomfortable feeling, when we find that, while the received traditions mention the so-called Sacred Hill beyond the river Anio as the place in question, the Aventine is also named,' and indeed both hills at once.2 These variations show a want of certainty in the tradition, which is the more striking as the Sacred Hill is said to have derived its name from the solemn treaty of peace which was concluded there, and as it must have been connected with this peace in the minds of the people. The statements of the number of tribunes chosen in the beginning vary between two and five, and it is not possible to decide which is the most authentic. The internal probability is in favour of two plebeian tribunes, because they were in some manner opposed to the two patrician consuls; but a few years later the board of the tribunes consisted of five members, and we cannot learn how the number was raised from two to five.1 The The question which presents the greatest difficulty is that of the mode of election of the first tribunes. To this question even the ancients could give no satisfactory answer. In the absence of any real evidence and authentic tradition, we are thrown back upon conjecture, and every form of election has been proposed in succession. question, it is true, relates only to the short period from 493 to 472, and it is, on the whole, of but small importance; but there seems to be no reason why we should not endeavour to answer it. For our own part we have a decided conviction that the plebeians alone in their purely plebeian assemblies the comitia tributa-could elect their legal chiefs and protectors." By the annalist Piso, according to Livy, ii. 32. 2 By Cicero, De Rep., ii. 33, 58. 3 Cicero, De Rep., ii. 34, 59. Livy, ii. 33. Zonaras, vii. 15. Dionysius, vi. 89. Plutarch, Coriolan., 7. Asconius in Cicero's Cornel., p. 76; Orell. See Schwegler, Röm. Gesch., ii. 271, Anm. 1. 5 The difficulty which seems to lie in the nature of the Publilian law, will be discussed when we come to treat of that law. It is, however, by no means improbable that the first election of tribunes on the Sacred Hill was rather irregular. On the other hand, we know that lawful comitia tributa could be sion. II. The distress of the plebeian debtors is almost universally CHAP. given as the occasion of the insurrection. This distress is painted in the most glaring colours. One would think Cause of the plebs had been only a mass of insolvent debtors, and the secesthat they had reached the last stage of economical decay. We may ask, how could such distress arise so suddenly? If wars undermined the prosperity of the peasants, how could the patricians escape the consequences? Where could they get the money for the loans ?2 Rome was not a commercial town, and in the earlier ages of the republic there was no artificial measure of value, excepting the heavy copper money, so that extensive money loans cannot be thought of. Nor can the debts of the plebeians be attributed, as has often been attempted, to the pressure of taxation. For, in the first place, as already remarked, money taxes were at that time either unknown, or very trifling, and, in the second place, it can hardly be imagined that the burden of taxation, if it existed, rested, as has been supposed, entirely on the shoulders of the poor.5 This would have been in direct opposition to the principle of the constitution of centuries, according to which the held outside the town, as we hear of such assemblies in the camp at a later period.-Livy, vii. 16. 4 Especially by modern writers (see Schwegler, Röm. Gesch., ii. 209. Mommsen, Röm. Gesch., i. 273; English translation, 278. Lange, Röm. Alterthümer, i. 434. Compare Sir G. C. Lewis, Credibility of Early Roman History, ii. 76). 2 Schwegler (Röm. Gesch., ii. 211) justly observes that the tradition gives us no information as to the sources of the wealth of the patricians. 8 Sir G. C. Lewis (Credibility, ii. 87) says, 'It is difficult for us to conceive a state of society in which the poor are borrowers on a large scale.' See also Fustel de Coulanges, La Cité Antique, p. 342. 4 Livy, ii. 23. It is impossible to imagine a more heartless system of legal oppression than that which has been ascribed to the patricians (Schwegler, Röm. Gesch., ii. 108, 210, 453). The tributum, or war tax, it has been said, was only assessed on landed property. Now the patricians had comparatively little property in land, the greater part of their wealth consisting in public lands which they had in 'occupation.' These lands were free from the tributum, which fell, accordingly, the more heavily on the shoulders of the plebeians. Moreover, the debts of the plebeians were not deducted from the capital for which they were assessed. They had to pay taxes even for those parts of their property which were taken possession of by patricians for unpaid debts, and they were liable BOOK II. Difficulties of the narrative. heaviest burdens of war had to be supported by the wealthier classes.1 Supposing, however, that the great mass of the plebeians at that time were hopelessly languishing under the oppression of their debts, and had in consequence lost their property, and practically their freedom, is it probable that the Roman legions were formed of such men, who had still on their backs and hands traces of the stripes and chains of slavery? And, if even this were granted, can we imagine the Roman senate insane enough to propose casting again into debtors' prisons these men, who had carried arms against the enemies of their country and had conquered in the field? The evident contradictions are multiplied at every step, as we proceed in examining the traditional story. But if we were to try to get nearer the truth by moderating the exaggerations, we should still go astray. For not only is it the excess of the misery of the plebeians which challenges our doubt, but we must question whether it was distress for debt at all that caused the insurrection. This doubt is justified, first, by the circumstance that, at the reconciliation of the two hostile parties, there is nothing said of removing the causes which are supposed to have produced the distress ; and, secondly, by the fact, that nevertheless, from this time forward up to the burning of Rome by the Gauls, nothing is said of any indebtedness of the plebeians. The severe laws of debt we find unmodified in the Twelve Tables. It is therefore not likely, nor is it recorded, that the plebeians, at the time of their secession, to pay when they were in the debtors' prison. This system of taxation is a refinement of injustice and cruelty, worse than that under which the unhappy Jews had to suffer in the most barbarous countries of medieval Europe. Is it possible to imagine such a system ever to have been tolerated by the men who laid the foundation of the Roman empire by their undaunted courage and discipline? Livy, i. 43: Hæc omnia in dites a pauperioribus inclinata onera.' 2 Dionysius (vi. 83), it is true, mentions an abolition of then existing debts, which would have been, if not a remedy of the evil, at least, a temporary boon; but Livy does not even allude to this, and Cicero speaks expressly against it (De Rep., ii. 34): Quo tum consilio prætermisso (viz. a remission of debts) causa populo nata est, duobus tribunis plebis per seditionem creatis, ut potentia senatus atque auctoritas minueretur.' urged the abolition of these laws, and we cannot under- CHAP. stand that insolvency was the cause of the insurrection. II. of the The true cause of the secession can therefore only be True cause looked for in the political condition of the plebs,' as above revolt. described, and not to any extent in the wretchedness of their economical position. Whatever that may have been, the plebeians were de facto not protected by the law. They were subject to the patrician magistrates, and without the benefit of the right of appeal. Those of them who were clients had a claim on the good-will and protection of their patrician patrons, but this claim was of no avail if a client wanted redress against his patron himself. It was evident that the plebeians stood in need of official patrons, who should, by virtue of their office, guard their rights, and interfere in their favour whenever they had to complain of injustice. of the As to the character of the office of tribune of the people, Position which arose out of the secession, we are on the whole well plebeian informed. The tribunes of the people were so essentially tribunes. different from all the other magistrates, that, strictly speaking, they could hardly be called magistrates at all. They were originally nothing but the official counsel of the plebs-but counsel who possessed a veto on the execution of any command or any sentence of the patrician authorities. veto. The tribune of the people had no military force at his Their disposal with which to inforce his veto. He had nothing power of to do with the army or war, and was entirely a civil officer. Only his official servants, who were armed neither with the 'fasces' nor with the axes of the consular lictors, obeyed his commands. There is no more striking proof of the high respect for law, which was inherent in the Roman 1 As expressed by Cicero (fragm. pro Cornelio): 'Propter nimiam dominationem potentium;' and by Sallust (fragm. Histor. i. 214, Gerlach): Iniuriæ validiorum et ob eas discessio plebis a patribus aliæque dissensiones domi fuere iam a principio,' etc. This right belonged to the patricians alone; see the Author's article 'On the Origin and Original Functions of the Tribunes of the People,' in the Rheinisches Museum, 1866, p. 165. See the article quoted in the preceding note. |