was to be turned to the exclusive advantage of the ruling class. If, accordingly, we consider the whole story of the intended emigration to Veii as a misrepresentation of the events in the patrician interest, it is quite clear that we must look upon the subsequent story of Manlius as equally distorted to suit the views and interests of the patricians. We shall find that the policy of Manlius, far from being dangerous to the republic, and aiming at the restoration of the monarchy, was directed to the improvement of the economical position of the plebeians, that it was an attempt to settle the land question, and that it anticipated the measure of Sextius and Licinius, which was carried only eighteen years later. II. 384 B.C. of M. Manlius. The story of M. Manlius, as reported by Livy,' runs as The story follows. When the restoration of the town had been determined upon, after the retreat of the Gauls, a bad time came for the Roman plebeians. They had to replace their houses, stables, and barns, their agricultural implements, and their cattle, at a time when it was difficult for them even to get food to support themselves and their families. There was no escape. They were obliged to borrow from the patricians, and their debts reduced them to a state of great dependence on their creditors. The high rates of interest and the cruel laws of debt drove them further and further on the downward path. The privileged class saw this misery of their fellow-citizens without compassion. Bowed down by the weight of their debts, oppressed by military service and taxes, excluded from the honours and advantages of the commonwealth, the plebeians were in a situation only too likely to foster the feeling of discontent, and to invite them to overthrow the existing order of the state. In this distress they found a friend in one of the foremost families of the patrician nobility. M. Manlius, the deliverer of the Capitol, distinguished by his heroism, which had been displayed in numberless battles, had not been admitted since BOOK 381 B.C. his consulship 392 B.c. to any public honours, and had the humiliation of seeing his rival Camillus, the champion of the nobility, preferred before him on every occasion. Resolving, therefore, to join the popular party, he took counsel with the tribunes for relieving the misery of the common people by grants of land and a remission of debts. He held meetings with the leaders of the plebs in his house on the Capitol. He accused those of his own. class of having embezzled the money which had been taken from the Gauls, and he tried in every way to gain the favour of the common people. One debtor, whom he saw being led away into prison, he immediately set free with his own money. Then he sold his estate near Veii, and endowed 400 poor plebeians with the proceeds. He declared that, as long as he possessed anything, no plebeian should suffer distress. These proceedings assumed at last such a threatening aspect that, in order to guard the town against insurrection, the senate recalled the dictator A. Cornelius Cossus, who was just then in the field fighting against the Volscians. The dictator summoned Manlius before his tribunal, accused him of falsely and maliciously libelling the patricians, and ordered him to be cast into prison. But now the sympathy of the people for Manlius became alarming. Tumults arose in the streets. Crowds assembled before the prison, and would leave the place neither day nor night. The senate thought it too hazardous to persist, and Manlius was set free. But the prison had not damped his courage; it had only roused his anger. He continued to stir up the multitude, and it seemed as though he could not rest until he had broken the power of the patricians. He aimed, it was thought, even higher. After the overthrow of the nobility, so at least his opponents averred, he wished to make himself king of Rome by the favour of the plebs. This fear alarmed the minds even of his own friends. The people began to tremble for their freedom. Two tribunes of the people accused Manlius of high treason before the comitia of centuries. But the people could not condemn the deliverer of the Capitol in CHAP. 384 B.C. and con in the narrative. face of its very walls. The accusers then removed the assembly of the people to the grove of Poetelius, from which the Capitol was not visible, and here Manlius was condemned. He atoned for his enterprise with his life. From the height of the rocks which he had heroically defended on that memorable night, he was hurled down as a traitor to his country. Yet more; his name was branded with infamy. His cousins of the Manlian house determined never again to adopt Marcus as a name. His abode on the Capitol was razed to the ground, and it was decreed that no patrician should henceforth dwell on the Capitol. Thus ended the life of Manlius, the deliverer of Rome, the humane friend of an oppressed people, condemned by this very people to die the death of a traitor. The preceding story is one that raises serious doubts Difficulties regarding its credibility and impartiality. One thing is One thing is tradictions certain, that Manlius was an advocate of the liberties of the plebs. Is it likely that the plebeian tribunes acted as his prosecutors, and that the people in the comitia centuriata condemned him? We should have a very mean opinion of the Roman plebeians if we could think them capable of sacrificing their best friends upon charges so frivolous as those which the enemies of Manlius brought against him.' But still more contemptible would they appear if we could believe the account which makes them incline to mercy so long as the Capitol is in sight, and forget his services as soon as the assembly is held in a place from which the scene of his heroism is not visible. Were they likely to be tricked so easily? Could they condemn him, and yet remain so much convinced of his innocence that they ascribed a plague which visited Rome in the next year to the anger of the gods at his condemnation ? These considerations lead as to suspect that the assembly which condemned Manlius to death was different from of Manthe comitia of centuries, which, according to the received lius. story, refused to find him guilty. This conclusion is con 1 Livy (vi. 20) admits that the charge was not made out. 2 Livy, vi. 20. 2 The condempation BOOK 384 B.C. Question of the guilt of firmed by some direct evidence. The assembly in the Poeteline Grove is called a 'concilium populi,' a term which applies exclusively to the patrician assembly of the curiæ. Yet more, according to an account preserved by Livy himself, the prosecutors of Manlius were the 'duumviri perduellionis.' The office of these duumviri dated from the regal period, and had almost been forgotten since the establishment of the republic. The duumviri could bring Manlius to trial only before the patrician assembly of curiæ.3 By a stretch of power the patricians might claim to exercise jurisdiction in the assembly over a member of their own body, although the comitia of centuries were competent since the decemviral legislation to try capital cases involving the life of a citizen. If so, Manlius was not put to death, as Livy reports, by being hurled down from the rock of the Capitol. This report was only an inference from the assumed fact that Manlius was found guilty on the prosecution of the tribunes, for that was the mode of execution adopted by the tribunes. It is stated by Cornelius Nepos that Manlius was scourged to death, as were of old all those condemned for treason to the state." It is hardly necessary to discuss the question of the guilt or the innocence of Manlius. If he was accused, Manlius. judged, and put to death by his political opponents, he stands acquitted of the crime of having aspired to absolute power. He was, no doubt, as innocent of it as the other victims of aristocratic vindictiveness before and after him, who were charged with the same offence, as Sp. Cassius, Sp. Mælius, and the Gracchi. We may be sure that such an accusation was not even brought against him, but that it is entirely an invention of later historians. In certain times certain crimes are inconceivable. When If this grove was situated as Livy says, outside the Porta Flumentana, the Capitol would be visible from it. 2 Schwegler, Röm. Gesch., ii. 85. 6 Gellius, xviii. 21, 24. Schwegler, Röm. Gesch., iii. 294. 5 Cicero, De Leg., iii. 19, 44. • Could any English politician of the present century be seriously charged II. the republican government was firmly established and CHAP. had lasted for some generations, no Roman could entertain the idea of upsetting it and establishing a monarchy 384 B.C. in its place. There was a steadiness in the development of the Roman constitution (in glaring contrast with the oscillations to which most Greek states were exposed), which excluded even the thought of tyranny, so long as the dominion of Rome was confined to Italy. We may therefore be convinced that, whatever the charge was which the duumviri perduellionis brought against Manlius, it was not that which the annalists, writing under the influence of Greek impressions, assigned. Manlius. It was the all but general impression among Roman The writers that Manlius was guilty of treason,' but the opposite motives of view has also advocates among ancient writers. Quinctilian says that it was his popularity which was interpreted as a proof of his ambition; 2 and the annotation which the grammarian Servius 3 made in later times to his Virgil, that Manlius fell a victim to the vengeance of his enemies,' was surely not invented by him, but extracted from some source which was not clouded by patrician party hatred. What were the real aims of Manlius, it is impossible for us to make out with perfect certainty, considering the evidence we have at our command. Perhaps he had already in view the division of the consulate between patricians and plebeians, as that had been the proposition of the popular party half a century before, and was carried less than twenty years after his death; but that he intended to relieve the pecuniary distress of the plebeians, and especially to reform the agrarian laws with regard to the use of the common lands, may be considered tolerably certain." The accusation which Livy brings with entertaining plans for upsetting the constitution of England and acting the part of a Napoleon? 1 Livy, vi. 11, and throughout his narrative. Plutarch, Cam., 36. Gellius, xvii. 21, 24. Valer. Max., vi. 3, 1. Zonaras, vii. 24. 2 Quinctilian, v. 9, 13: Spurii Mælii Marcique Manlii popularitas signum affectati regni est existimatum.' 4 Servius, ad Virg. Æn., viii. 652: Manlius inimicorum oppressus factione.' In 387 B.C., three years before the death of Manlius, four new tribunes |