[74.1] After Appius had introduced this motion and appeared to win great approval, Aulus Sempronius Atratinus, who was called upon next, said:
“This is not the first time that I have had occasion to praise Appius as a man highly capable of grasping eventualities long in advance, and as one always offering the most excellent and useful opinions, a man who is firm and unshaken in his judgements and neither yields to fear nor is swayed by favour. For I have never ceased to praise and admire him both for his prudence and the noble spirit he shows in the presence of danger. And it is not a different motion that I offer, but I too make the same one, merely adding a few details which Appius seemed to me to omit. [2] As regards the Hernicans and the Latins, to whom we recently granted equal rights of citizenship, I too think they ought not to share in the allotment of our lands; for it was not after they entered into friendship with us that we acquired this land which we now occupy, but still earlier, when by our own perilous efforts, without the assistance of anyone else, we took it from our enemies. Let us give them this answer: that the possessions which each of us already had when we entered into the treaty of friendship must remain the peculiar and inalienable property of each, but that in the case of all that we may come to possess through war when taking the field together, from the time we made this treaty, each shall have his share. [3] For this arrangement will neither afford our allies any just excuses for anger, as being wronged, nor cause the populace any fear of appearing to prefer their own interests to their good name. As to the appointment of the men proposed by Appius to delimit the public land, I quite agree with him. For this will afford us great frankness in dealing with the plebeians, since they are now displeased on both accounts — because they themselves reap no benefit from the public possessions and because some of us enjoy them contrary to justice. But if they see them restored to the public and the revenues therefrom applied to the necessary uses of the commonwealth, they will not suppose that it makes any difficult to them whether it is the land or its produce that they share. [4] I need not mention, of course, that some of the poor are more delighted with the losses of others with now their own advantages. However, I do not regard the entering of these two provisions in the decree as enough; but we ought in my opinion to gain the goodwill of the populace and relieve them by another moderate favour also, one which I shall presently name, after I have first shown you the reason, or rather the necessity, for our doing this also.
[75.1] “You are aware, no doubt, of the words spoken by the tribune in the assembly when he asked one of the consuls, Verginius here, what his opinion was concerning the allotment of the land, whether he consented to divide the public possessions among the citizens but not among the allies, or would not consent that even we should receive a share of what belongs to us all in common. And Verginius admitted that he was not attempting to hinder the allotting of the land so far as it related to us Romans, if this seemed best to everybody. This concession not only caused the tribunes to espouse our cause, but also rendered the populace more reasonable. [2] What has come over us, then, that we are now to change our mind about what we then conceded? Or what advantage shall we gain by pursuing our noble and excellent principles of government, principles worthy of our supremacy, if we cannot persuade those who are to make use of them? But we shall not persuade them, and this not one of you fails to know. For, of all who fail to get what they want, those will feel the harshest resentment who are cheated of their hopes and are not getting what has been agreed upon. Surely the politician whose principle it is to please will run off with them again, and after that not one even of the tribunes will stand by us. [3] Hear, therefore, what I advise you to do, and the amendment I add to the motion of Appius; but do not rise up or create any disturbance before you have heard all I have to say. After you have appointed commissioners, whether ten or whatever number, to inspect the land and fix its boundaries, empower them to determine which and how great a part of it should be held in common and, by being let for five years, increase the revenues of the treasury, and again, how great a part and which should be divided among our plebeians. And whatever land they appoint to be allotted you should allot after determining whether it shall be distributed among all the citizens, or among those who have no land as yet, or among those who have the lowest property rating, or in whatever manner you shall think proper. As regards the men who are to fix the bounds of the land and the decree you will publish concerning its division and everything else that is necessary, I advise, since the present consuls have but a short time to continue in office, that their successors shall carry out these purposes in such manner as they think will be for the best. [4] For not only do matters of such moment require no little time, but the present consuls, who are at variance, can hardly be expected to show greater insight in discovering what is advantageous than their successors, if, as we hope, the latter shall be harmonious. For delay is in many cases a useful thing and anything but danger, and time brings about many changes in a single day; furthermore, the absence of dissension among those who preside over the public business is the cause of all the blessings enjoyed by states. As for me, this is the opinion I have to express; but if anyone has anything better to propose, let him speak.”
[76.1] When Sempronius had ended, there was much applause from those present, and not one of the senators who were asked their opinion after him expressed any different view. Thereupon the decree of the senate was drawn up to this effect: that the ten oldest ex-consuls should be appointed to determine the boundaries of the public land and to declare how much of it ought to be let and how much divided among the people; [2] that those enjoying the rights of citizens and the allies, in case they later acquired more land by a joint campaign, should each have their allotted share, according to the treaties; and that the appointment of the decemvirs, the distribution of the allotments, and everything else that was necessary should be carried out by the incoming consuls. When this decree was laid before the populace, it not only put a stop to the demagoguery of Cassius, but also prevented the sedition that was being rekindled by the orator from going any farther.
[77.1] The following year, at the beginning of the seventy-fourth Olympiad (the one at which Astylus of Syracuse won the foot-race), when Leostratus was archon at Athens, and Quintus Fabius and Servius Cornelius had succeeded to the consulship, two patricians, young indeed in years, but the most distinguished of their body because of the prestige of their ancestors, men of great influence both on account of their bands of supporters and because of their wealth, and, for young men, inferior to none of mature age for their ability in civil affairs, namely, Caeso Fabius, brother of the then consul, and Lucius Valerius Publicola, brother to the man who overthrew the kings, being quaestors at the same time and therefore having authority to assemble the populace, denounced before them Spurius Cassius, the consul of the preceding year, who had dared to propose the laws concerning the distribution of land, charging him with having aimed at tyranny; and appointing a day, they summoned him to make his defence before the populace. [2] When a very large crowd has assembled upon the day appointed, the two quaestors called the multitude together in assembly, and recounting all his overt actions, showed that they were calculated for no good purpose. First, in the case of the Latins, who would have been content with being accounted worthy of a common citizenship with the Romans, esteeming it a great piece of good luck to get even so much, he had as consul not only bestowed on them the citizenship they asked for, but had furthermore caused a vote to be passed that they should be given also the third part of the spoils of war on the occasion of any joint campaign. Again, in the case of the Hernicans, who, having been subdued in war, ought to have been content not to be punished by the loss of some part of their territory, he had made them friends instead of subjects, and citizens instead of tributaries, and had ordered that they should receive the second third of any land and booty that the Romans might acquire from any source. [3] Thus the spoils were to be divided into three portions, the subjects of the Ro
mans and aliens receiving two of them and the natives and dominant race the third part. They pointed out that as a result of this procedure one or the other of two most absurd situations would come about in case they should choose to honour any other nation, in return for many great services, by granting the same privileges with which they had honoured not only the Latins, but also the Hernicans, who had never done them the least service. For, as there would be but one third left for them, they would either have no part to bestow upon their benefactors or, if they granted them the like favour, they would have nothing for themselves.
[78.1] Besides this they went on to relate that Cassius, in proposing to give to the people the common possessions of the state without a decree of the senate or the consent of his colleague, had intended to get the law passed by force — a law that was inexpedient and unjust, not for this reason alone, that, though the senate ought to have considered the measure first, and, in case they approved of it, it ought to have been a joint concession on the part of all the authorities, he was making it the favour of one man, [2] but also for the further reason — the most outrageous of all — that, though it was in name a grant of the public land to the citizens, it was in reality a deprivation, since the Romans, who had acquired it, were to receive but one third, while the Hernicans and the Latins, who had no claim to it at all, would get the other two thirds. They further charged that even when the tribunes opposed him and asked him to strike out the part of the law granting equal shares to the aliens, he had paid no heed to them, but continued to act in opposition to the tribunes, to his colleague, to the senate, and to all who consulted the best interests of the commonwealth. [3] After they had enumerated these charges and named as witnesses to their truth the whole body of the citizens, they then at length proceeded to present the secret evidences of his having aimed at tyranny, showing that the Latins and the Hernicans had contributed money to him and provided this with arms, and that the most daring young men from their cities were resorting to him, making secret plans, and serving him in many other ways besides. And to prove the truth of these charges they produced many witnesses, both residents of Rome and others from the cities in alliance with her, persons who were neither mean nor obscure. [4] In these the populace put confidence; and without either being moved now by the speech which the man delivered — a speech which he had prepared with much care, — or yielding to compassion when his three young sons contributed much to his appeal for sympathy and many others, both relations and friends, joined in bewailing his fate, or paying any regard to his exploits in war, by which he had attained to the greatest honour, they condemned him. [5] Indeed, they were so exasperated at the name of tyranny that they did not moderate their resentment even in the degree of his punishment, but sentenced him to death. For they were afraid that if a man who was the ablest general of his time should be driven from his country into exile, he might follow the example of Marcius in dividing his own people and uniting their enemies, and bring a relentless war upon his country. This being the outcome of his trial, the quaestors led him to the top of the precipice that overlooks the Forum and in the presence of all the citizens hurled him down from the rock. For this was the traditional punishment at that time among the Romans for those who were condemned to death.
[79.1] Such is the more probable of the accounts that have been handed down concerning this man; but I must not omit the less probable version, since this also has been believed by many and is recorded in histories of good authority. It is said, then, by some that while the plan of Cassius to make himself tyrant was as yet concealed from all the world, his father was the first to suspect him, and that after making the strictest inquiry into the matter he went to the senate; then, ordering his son to appear, he became both informer and accuser, and when the senate also had condemned him, he took him home and put him to death. [2] The harsh and inexorable anger of fathers against their offending sons, particularly among the Romans of that time, does not permit us to reject even this account. For earlier Brutus, who expelled the kings, condemned both his sons to die in accordance with the law concerning malefactors, and they were beheaded because they were believed to have been helping to bring about the restoration of the kings. And at a later time Manlius, when he was commander in the Gallic war and his son distinguished himself in battle, honoured him, indeed, for his bravery with the crowns given for superior valour, but at the same time accused him of disobedience in not staying in the fort in which he was posted but leaving it, contrary to the command of his general, in order to take part in the struggle; and he put him to death as a deserter. [3] And many other fathers, some for greater and others for lesser faults, have shown neither mercy nor compassion to their sons. For this reason I do not feel, as I said, that this account should be rejected as improbable. But the following considerations, which are arguments of no small weight and are not lacking in probability, draw me in the other direction and lead me to agree with the first tradition. In the first place, after the death of Cassius his house was razed to the ground and to this day its site remains vacant, except for that part of it on which the state afterwards built the temple of Tellus, which stands in the street leading to the Carinae; and again, his goods were confiscated by the state, which dedicated first-offerings for them in various temples, especially the bronze statues to Ceres, which by their inscriptions show of whose possessions they are the first-offerings. [4] But if his father had been at once the informer, the accuser and the executioner of his son, neither his house would have been razed nor his estate confiscated. For the Romans have no property of their own while their fathers are still living, but fathers are permitted to dispose both of the goods and the persons of their sons as they wish. Consequently the state would surely never have seen fit, because of the crimes of the son, to take away and confiscate the estate of his father who had given information of his plan to set up a tyranny. For these reasons, therefore, I agree rather with the former of the two accounts; but I have given both, to the end that my readers may adopt whichever one they please.
[80.1] When the attempt was made by some to put to death the sons of Cassius also, the senators looked upon the custom as cruel and harmful; and having assembled, they voted that the penalty should be remitted in the case of the boys and that they should live in complete security, being punished by neither banishment, disfranchisement, nor any other misfortune. And from that time this custom has become established among the Romans and is observed down to our day, that the sons shall be exempt from all punishment for any crimes committed by their fathers, whether they happen to be the sons of tyrants, of parricides, or of traitors — treason being among the Romans the greatest crime. [2] And those who attempted to abolish this custom in our times, after the end of the Marsic and civil wars, and took away from the sons of fathers who had been proscribed under Sulla the privilege of standing for the magistracies held by their fathers and of being members of the senate as long as their own domination lasted, were regarded as having done a thing deserving both the indignation of men and the vengeance of the gods. Accordingly, in the course of time a justifiable retribution dogged their steps as the avenger of their crimes, by which the perpetrators were reduced from the greatest height of glory they had once enjoyed to the lowest depths, and not even their posterity, except of the female line, now survives; [3] but the custom was restored to its original status by the man who brought about their destruction. Among some of the Greeks, however, this is not the practice, but certain of them think it proper to put to death the sons of tyrants together with their fathers; and others punish them with perpetual banishment, as if Nature would not permit virtuous sons to be the offspring of wicked fathers or evil sons of good fathers. But concerning these matters, I leave to the consideration of anyone who is so minded the question whether the practice prevalent among the Greeks is better or the custom of the Romans is superior; and I now return to the events that followed.
[81.1] After the death of Cassius those who sought to extend the power of the aristoc
racy had grown more daring and more contemptuous of the plebeians, while those of obscure reputation and fortune were humbled and abased, and feeling that they ad lost the best guardian of the plebeian order, accused themselves of great folly in having condemned him. The reason for this was that the consuls were not carrying out the decree of the senate regarding the allotting of the land, though it was their duty to appoint the decemvirs to fix the boundaries of the land and to present a proposal as to how much of it ought to be distributed, and to whom. [2] Many met in groups, always discussing this duplicity and accusing the former tribunes of having betrayed the commonwealth; and there were continual meetings of the assembly called by the tribunes then in office, and demands for the fulfilment of the promise. The consuls, perceiving this, determined to repress the turbulent and disorderly element in the city, taking the wars as a pretext. For it chanced that their territory was at that very time harassed by bands of robbers and forays from the neighbouring cities. [3] To punish these aggressors, then, they brought out the war standards and began to enrol the forces of the commonwealth. And when the poor did not come forward to enlist, the consuls, being unable to make use of the compulsion of the laws against the disobedient — for the tribunes defended the plebeians and were prepared to prevent any attempt to seize either the persons or the goods of those who failed to serve — made many threats that they would not yield to those who were stirring up the multitude, leaving with them a lurking suspicion that they would appoint a dictator, who would set aside the other magistracies and alone by himself possess a tyrannical and irresponsible power. [4] As soon as the plebeians had entertained this suspicion, fearing that Appius, a harsh and stern man, would be the one appointed, they were ready to submit to anything rather than that.
Delphi Complete Works of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Illustrated) (Delphi Ancient Classics Book 79) Page 80