The Historians' History of the World 05 [The Roman Republic]

[457-390 B.C.]

Up to the time of the great wars with the Veientines and the Celts, the civil dissensions with which Rome was torn constantly grew in importance and menace, until shortly after the so-called decemviral period the class conflicts had assumed a character entirely different from that borne by them during the first half of the fifth century B.C. Before the great crisis ushered in by the decemvirate the work of the plebeian party leaders had been limited to bringing their state within a state to completer organisation, widening the breach that existed between the plebeians and the populus, or patrician body, and endeavouring by every means in their power to lessen the authority exercised by patrician officials over the plebeians. This period during which the two divisions of the Roman people met in a conflict of unexampled ferocity and hate, presents little that can be dwelt on with pleasure. Incidents of the most revolting nature arose from the extreme arrogance of the patrician youth; even the word assassination has frequently to be employed, while the internal strife had a serious effect on the fortunes of the nation in the wars it was constantly waging abroad. Yet even in those troubled times the foreign foe would singularly misreckon who counted on the connivance of either patricians or plebeians to open to him the city’s door, since when an external common danger threatened, the divided factions united as a rule to present a front solid and impenetrable as a wall of brass.

Fortunately for the future of Rome the bent towards a constantly widening separation between the plebeians and the patricians received, in the decemvir period, an entirely different turn. From that time the plebeian leaders were chiefly occupied in winning for their constituents their proper social and political position in the Roman state, with the balance leaning strongly, up to the decisive battle for the hegemony on the Apennine peninsula, to the side of the purely political questions of dispute. The sympathy of modern observers is almost entirely with the plebeians. The demands were moderate and the political views of the energetic honourable Roman peasants were immeasurably higher than those of the Greek democrats.[21]

In spite of all the heat and passion evinced on both sides, revolution was the last thing the parties thought of up to the very time of the Gracchi. Whereas in Hellas the triumphant party rarely receded from a position once taken or abandoned any pretensions however lofty, the Roman peasant assemblies contented themselves with claiming merely what, according to our modern ideas, was their just due. Attacked as they frequently were in their deepest interests, the only revenge dreamed of by the plebeians was secession—the voluntary cutting of themselves adrift from the patrician state; and their end at last attained, in good qualities as in bad they manifested precisely the same robust qualities that characterised their patrician adversaries. Their subsequent acts fully justified their course, since in their public affairs they revealed a vigour and capacity well-nigh inexhaustible.

But we must not judge the patrician class too harshly; revolting as their laws against debtors appear to us, we are not justified in attributing their adroitly maintained policy of resistance purely to the arrogance and selfishness of a privileged class, nor their refusal to admit plebeians to equal marriage laws and municipal offices entirely to base hypocrisy. We must, moreover, take into account the natural hesitation of an old, experienced governing body to give the leadership in public affairs into the hands of new and untried elements; and the plebeians themselves, far from despising the adversaries they so deeply hated, never failed to recognise those sterling qualities by which in peace and war they had achieved such signal service to the state, and elevated them to the position of models for their own character and conduct. And finally, at the decisive turning points in the evolution of Rome’s ancient constitution, it was not before superior might that the patricians lowered their banner and reached out the hand of friendship to their foe; it was solely in obedience to their own patriotic perception of what was best for the state and to the force of inner necessity.

[510-452 B.C.]

The wonderful tenacity displayed by both the divisions of the people in their conflicts with each other, proclaims them to be of one blood, and to have in actual fact but one cause, that of their agricultural interests. This kinship further explains the conservative character of these struggles, and the aristocratic tendencies constantly to be observed in the Roman administration from the time of the complete triumph of the plebeians down to that of the elder Cato. It was these class struggles and the manner in which they were carried on that gave the Roman constitution, as it gradually developed through succeeding generations, that stability and elasticity that later excited in more than one Greek statesman feelings of envy.

One failure, however, was not spared this people, in spite of that practical sense that led them on only tried political ground, and caused them to advance by successive cautious steps rather than by means of dangerous innovations. It was precisely this conservative character maintained throughout by the Roman constitution that prevented the problems that confronted it from ever finding complete solution, that cumbered it with a number of empty, useless forms, and gave new life to certain dangerous elements—notably that of dualism—that were later, when the creative power of the people was on the wane and the national character for ability and skill about to disappear, to unfold in disastrous might.