Editing Decemviri (section)

===Views of modern historians===

The reason the first decemvirate had a dual role, as a new magistracy which replaced the consuls and took on governance with extraordinary powers, and as a commission for compiling law, is not explained by the sources. Some modern historians have grappled with this as an apparent contradiction.

A theory has tried to explain this contradiction by positing that the first decemvirate differed from the second one by being a commission to compile laws, while the latter was a permanent governing body.<ref>Niebuhr, ''History of Rome'', (1837). II, p. 334</ref><ref>De Martino Storia della costituzione romana, II (1972) p. 308</ref> [[Theodor Mommsen]] criticized this for not having any support from the sources.<ref name="Mommsem, Romische Forschungen 1864 p. 296">Mommsem, ''Romische Forschungen'', I (1864), p. 296</ref> Cornell notes that if this was the case the consuls and the plebeian tribunes would have been suspended at the start of the second decemvirate instead of the first. Moreover, that the second decemvirate was elected because it was felt that two new tables were needed implies that the decemvirate was meant to be a temporary body for the duration of the drawing up of the laws. So does the second decemvirate's attempt to prolong its office by pretending that they were still working on the final two tables.<ref>Cornell, T. J., ''The Beginnings of Rome'', p. 273–274</ref>

The decemvirate's role as a new magistracy which replaced the consuls and the plebeian tribunes has been interpreted as being intended to reintegrate the plebeians into the Roman state by doing away with the plebeian tribunes. If this was the case, the fact that Livy seemed to suggest that only patricians sat on the first decemvirate would be a contradiction. This and the fact that one of the decemviri was [[Titus Genucius Augurinus]], who had a plebeian name, have led some historians to reject both that this man was a decemvir and the existence of a second decemvirate, which they see as fiction.<ref>Beloch, ''Romische Geschichte bis zum Beginn der punischen Kriege'', 1896, p. 326</ref><ref>Drummond A, ''Cambridge Ancient History'' VII.2 1989, pp. 113–142</ref> Mommsen argued that the decemvirate must have been open to plebeians from the beginning.<ref name="Mommsem, Romische Forschungen 1864 p. 296"/>

Some historians see the sharp contrast between the first, good decemvirate and the second, bad one as a legend to explain the [[Twelve Tables]] in general being good while the prohibition of marriage between patricians and plebeians was bad. This bad law was fictively ascribed to a second body of bad decemvirs. However, Cornell argues that this view is problematic. He asks two questions. If this was a fiction to explain this law, why were the last two tables (one of which contained this law) published by the consuls in 449&nbsp;BC after the deposition of the bad decemvirate? Why was a law banning marriage between patricians and plebeians drawn up by a body composed by both patricians and plebeians (the majority of the members of the second decemvirate being plebeians)?<ref>Cornell, T.J., ''The Beginnings of Rome'', p. 274</ref>

In 2005, historian Gary Forsythe dismissed the second decemvirate as unhistorical. He presents a number of arguments for his view. First, it is an invention modeled on the story of the [[Thirty Tyrants]]. Athens was forced to abolish her democracy following her defeat by [[Sparta]] and it was replaced by a commission tasked with drafting the laws of a new constitution. They arrested and executed political opponents and seized power. Many Athenians fled or were exiled. They formed a militia and reached Peiraeus (Piraeus, the port of Athens), defeated the forces sent by the Thirty Tyrants, and then forced them to abdicate and restored democracy. Forsythe sees similarities with the story of the decemviri, where the republican offices are suspended and replaced by the decemviri who were also tasked with drafting new laws, who then refused to leave office when their term was up, became tyrannical, were forced to resign by a secession and the republican offices were restored. Second, the story fits with the Greek theory that a good form of government gives way to its corrupt counterpart, which, in turn, leads back to another good one. The first decemvirate represents "ideal aristocratic rule in its ideal form, followed by the corrupt oligarchy of the second one whose misrule leads to rebellion and further political change". Third, one year and one decemvirate should have been enough to draw up a legislation which was not overly complicated.<ref>Forsythe, G., ''A Critical History of Early Rome'', pp.&nbsp;223–324</ref>

Forsythe also says that the idea of the decemviri being overthrown "might have been suggested to later Roman historians by the names of the consuls for 449&nbsp;BC, [[Lucius Valerius Poplicola Potitus|Lucius Valerius Potitus]] and [[Marcus Horatius Barbatus]]". They were similar to the names of the consuls for 509 BC, the year of the establishment of the Roman republic ([[Publius Valerius Publicola]] and [[Marcus Horatius Pulvillus]]). The republic was instituted with the overthrow of the last king of Rome, who was a tyrant, in a rebellion and the decision to do away with the monarchy.<ref>Forsythe, ''A Critical History of Early Rome'', p.&nbsp;223</ref>

Cornell thinks that the story of the second decemvirate attracted much secondary elaboration (later additions), that some of this at times romanticized it and that parts of the story are fictitious, but that it cannot be proved the whole story was fictive and more convincing cases have to be made to support this view. He adds that "identifying the fictitious parts is no easier than deciding which parts might be based on genuine fact". He also notes that the tradition of two decemvirates and the division of the tables into groups of ten and two were already around in the mid-second century BC. Therefore, although the later historians who have given us the accounts of the decemvirate might have added additional elaborations, there is no evidence that they made up the core story.<ref>Cornell, T. J., ''The Beginnings of Rome'', pp.&nbsp;274–275</ref>

Doubts have been cast about the story of Appius Claudius and Verginia. Appius Claudius was the victim of a later tradition of hostility towards the Claudii, his family (Mommsen showed traces of this, but did not see it as a reason for rejecting the story); the character of Verginia bears similarities with that of Lucretia, whose rape led to the overthrow of the monarchy (Ogilvie notes that in the original story might not have provided names and that she may have been referred to as 'a maiden' and the name Verginia was ascribed to her later, but she did exist); the story was the subject of a traditional ballade. Cornell argues that such objections do not prove that "the story is a later invention".<ref name="Cornell, p. 275">Cornell, p.&nbsp;275</ref><ref>Mommsen, ''Romische Forschungen'', I (1864), pp.&nbsp;285–318</ref><ref>Ogilvie ''A Commentary on Livy'', (1965) p.&nbsp;67</ref>

The story of the embassy to Athens to study the Law of Solon is unlikely. If it had gone to Athens, by that time the Law of Solon would have been replaced by the radical reforms of [[Pericles]] in the first half of the 5th century BC. Cornell notes that the fragments of the Law of the Twelve Tables show many signs of Greek influence and even some Greek loan-words. He thinks that the source was likely to have been the Greek cities of southern Italy and that it is there that efforts to familiarize with Greek written laws would have been directed. He also points out that according to an alternative tradition the decemviri were advised by [[Hermodorus of Ephesus]], a Greek philosopher in exile.<ref name="Cornell, p. 275"/><ref>Pliny the Elder, ''Natural History'', 32.21</ref><ref>Strabo, ''Geographia'', 14.1.25</ref><ref>Pomponius, 1.2.2.4</ref>