CHAP. IX. ratives of Appius Claudius and Spurius Oppius, the most guilty of his accomplices, were accused of having broken the laws, and died in prison by their own hands. The rest were punished with banishment and forfeiture of their property. This is, in a few words, the story which Livy and Diony- The narsius have ornamented with a great mass of rhetorical Livy and detail. Unfortunately we have no full report of the events Dionysius. independent of these two narratives, and we are obliged to use the few faint hints given us to shape the crude mass of confused and conflicting statements into something which can be accepted as at least a possible history of the time. We start from the peculiar part which Appius Claudius Conduct of played during the decemvirate. Though he is painted in Appius. the glaring colours which mark all the Claudii of the older annals as enemies of the plebeians, yet he appears nevertheless in Livy's account to be decidedly opposed to the ultra-patrician party. He even enjoys the favour of the plebs, and thereby exercises the chief influence among the decemvirs of the first year. He has become entirely a friend of the people; he agitates against the nobles, and for the candidates of lower station and less influence; he associates with the leaders of the plebs, the former tribunes. Thus he not only brings about his own re 3 'Livy, iii. 33-54. Dionysius, x. 54-xi. 45. See a fuller account, containing all the variations, in Sir G. C. Lewis's Credibility of Early Roman History, ii. 196 ff. 2 The account of Zonaras (vii. 18) is too scanty. The story of Virginia was very popular in Rome, and is referred to by numerous writers; but even if it be allowed to be more than an anecdote, it throws no light on the nature of the decemviral legislation, and the accompanying facts. 3 Livy, iii. 33: Regimen totius magistratus penes Appium erat favore plebis.' 4 Livy, iii. 33: Adeo novum sibi ingenium induerat, ut plebicola repente omnisque auræ popularis captator evaderet, pro truci sævoque insectatore plebis.' s Livy, iii. 35: Criminari optimates, extollere candidatorum levissimum quemque humillimumque.' The humillimi must be understood to have been plebeians, though Livy does not, like Dionysius, expressly state the fact that among the members of the second decemvirate there were plebeians. Livy, iii. 35: 'Ipse medius inter tribunicios Duilios Iciliosque in foro volitare, per illos se plebi venditare.' BOOK II. Motives of election, but frustrates the nomination of the most zealous and influential patricians. Finally he succeeds so far that three plebeians are chosen among the second decemvirs." These features of the story, in which Appius bears a character differing so widely from that usually ascribed to the Claudii, deserve the more credence as it would have been easy to describe Appius Claudius in the whole story as a consistent enemy of the plebs. It appears, therefore, that in the traditions respecting the decemvirate, the democratic principles of Appius Claudius were too distinctly and too strongly expressed to allow the annalists to exhibit him in this respect with the traditionary characteristics of his family. If, therefore, we may believe any one single feature of the story, it is this prominent importance of Appius Claudius in a policy carried out in opposition to the wishes of the narrow-minded and short-sighted nobility. What then, we may ask, was the intention of Appius Claudius? It is clear that he could not have been, as he is represented, at one and the same time, an enemy of the leaders of the nobility and a tyrannical oppressor of the common people. The two characters cannot be united in one person. From whom could Appius and his adherents have expected support, if they had estranged both nobles and people? Here is evidently a perversion of the truth, and we must decide whether we wish to accept the account of his enmity or of his friendship for the people. If it be admitted that, through the influence of Appius Claudius, three plebeians were elected among the second decemvirs, and the leaders of the extreme patrician party excluded, his intention must have been, in the spirit of the Terentilian law, to establish harmony between the two orders.3 At 1 Livy, iii. 35: Deiectis honore per coitionem duobus Quinetiis, Capitolino et Cincinnato et patruo suo C. Claudio, constantissimo viro in optimatum causa, et aliis eiusdem fastigii civibus, nequaquam splendore vitæ pares decemviros creat.' Whilst Livy does not distinctly mention plebeian decemvirs, but speaks only of some of them as levissimi and humillimi (see preceding page, note 5), Dionysius reports that three of them were plebeian. • Compare Dionysius, x. 54: Εἰσῆλθε γάρ τις τὸν ̓Αππιον ἐπιθυμία ξένην the election of the first decemvirs, the patricians had succeeded in excluding the plebeians, thereby violating the agreement which had ended the long disputes about the Terentilian rogations. By the mixed composition of the second decemvirate, the long-wished-for equality of rights between the two orders might be obtained. This was probably the object of Appius Claudius. We venture to think that by such an equality of rights, he hoped to fill up the gap between the two orders of citizens, so that the tribuneship, being henceforth superfluous, need not be re-established. 2 CHAP. IX. But in this attempt Claudius had to encounter the whole Opposition to Appius. influence of the party of the uncompromising patricians. He did not succeed in winning their approval for his scheme of regulating on an equable footing the respective rights of the plebeians and patricians. The two last tables which were yet wanted to complete the whole decemviral legislation could not be passed by Appius and his colleagues,' no doubt because his draft contained regulations unpalatable to the old aristocracy. When they were finally passed, after the downfall of the decemvirs, under the consulship of Valerius and Horatius, they certainly contained such unpopular laws as the one which forbad marriages between patricians and plebeians. But it appears that Claudius, with characteristic firmness, persevered in his purpose, and when the year of office of the decemvirs had expired, he declined to retire with his colleagues before his laws were accepted and published. He thereby placed himself in a false position, and no longer had the formal law on his side. It was now easy for the patricians to ἀρχὴν περιβαλέσθαι καὶ νόμους καταστήσασθαι τῇ πατρίδι ὁμονοίας τε καὶ εἰρήνης καὶ τοῦ μίαν ἅπαντας ἡγεῖσθαι τὴν πόλιν ἄρξαι τοῖς συμπολιτευομένοις. • Diodorus, xii. 24: Οὗτοι δὲ (the decemvirs) τοὺς νόμους οὐκ ἠδυνήθησαν συντελέσαι. 2 Diodorus (xii. 26) states this distinctly and even emphatically: 'Enì dè τούτων (i.e. the consuls Horatius and Valerius) ἐν τῇ Ῥώμῃ τῆς νομοθεσίας διὰ τὴν στάσαν ἀσυντελέστου γενομένης, οἱ ὕπατοι συνετέλεσαν αὐτήν. Τῶν γὰρ καλουμένων δώδεκα πινάκων οἱ μὲν δέκα συνετελέσθησαν, τοὺς δ ̓ ὑπολειπομένους δύο ἀνέγραψαν οἱ ὕπατοι. See p. 194, note. BOOK II. Conjectural cha racter of the history. overthrow the bold innovator and his colleagues, as well as to frustrate his plans. But only a compulsory resignation, and not by any means a revolt of the people, put an end to the decemvirate. The secession which took place at this time was surely not directed against the man who, like Sp. Cassius and other Roman patricians, had the magnanimity and the political wisdom to oppose the presumed advantages of the privileged party. If we are not mistaken, the rising and the secession of the plebs did not take place before the abolition of the decemvirate. Then the two last tables, containing the unpopular laws, were drawn up by the consuls Valerius and Horatius, and while the old consular government was restored, the attempt was made to prevent a restoration of the tribuneship. Taking this view of the events we must of course reject the story of the accusation of Appius and his colleagues by the tribunes of the people, and of his suicide in prison. We shall have the less scruple in doing this, as the impeachment and suicide of Appius are related by the annalists for the year 470 B.C. also.' If Appius died a violent death, it was not the plebeians who drove him to it, but men of his own order, who persecuted in him the traitor and apostate. The annals of the aristocratic families have concealed this fact, as they have also concealed facts regarding the punishment of other friends of the people.2 This is our view of the history of the second decemvirate. It is a view which makes that history appear to some extent possible and intelligible. Of course it follows 2 See book iii. chap. ii. 1 See Schwegler, Röm. Gesch., ii. 569. Mommsen, Röm. Gesch., i. 287, expresses similar views. We do not pretend to maintain that the course of events here indicated is proved by the evidence we possess. All we can hope to succeed in is to make it appear probable or likely. And this, we believe, is the result of an unbiassed examination of the received story. The last two of the twelve tables contained the unpopular laws. If these had been proposed by Appius and his colleagues, and if the secession of the plebs had been directed against the decemvirs, surely the triumph of the secession and the downfall of the decemvirs would have resulted in a modification or repeal of these laws. It is, therefore, clear that the secession was not directed against the laws proposed by the decemvirs, but against the attempt of the patricians, after the completion of the decemviral IX. that Appius cannot have been accused by the popular CHAP. party of the crimes said to have been committed against Siccius and Virginia. Such charges may well have been fabricated against him by the patricians, who wished to make his name infamous. The whole history of the decemvirate is in a state of hopeless confusion,' and our conjectures cannot be adduced as proved facts. But, however this may be, the story of Livy and Dionysius is so absurd that we must sacrifice it for any hypothesis which does not require us to accept palpable contradictions as facts, and the imaginations of a feverish dream as history. legislation, to prevent the restoration of the old tribuneship. On the other hand, the hostility between the decemvirs and the senate can have arisen only from one cause, viz., the popular tendencies manifested among the decemvirs, three of whom were, according to Dionysius, plebeians. 1 Sir G. C. Lewis, Credibility of Early Roman History, ii. 252. |