sacerclotal aristocracy still held sway, refused to aid
the Veientines. The legend adds that in this war the Romans carried away a Veientine aruspex, and made him deliver them an oracle that assured them the victory. Does not this legend signify that the Etruscan priests delivered the city to the Romans?
Later, when Capua revolted against Rome, it was remarked that the knights — that is to say, the aristo- cratic body — took no part in that insurrection.[1] In 313, the cities of Ausonn, Sora, Minturnce, and Vescia were delivered to the Romans by the aristocratic party.[2] When the Etruscans were seen to form a coalition against Rome, it was because popular governments had been established among them. A single city — that of Arretium — refused to enter this coalition; and this was because the aristocracy still prevailed in Arretium. When Hannibal was in Italy, all the cities were agitated ; but it was not a question of independence. In every city the aristocracy were for Rome, and the plebs for the Carthaginians.[3]
The manner in which Rome was governed will explain this constant preference which the aristocracy entertained for it. The series of revolutions continued as in other cities, but more slowly. In 509, when the Latin cities already had tyrants, a patrician reaction had succeeded at Rome. The democracy rose afterwards, but gradually, and with much moderation and self-restraint. The Roman government was, therefore, for a longer time aristocratic than any other, and was long the hope of the aristocratic party.
The democracy, it is true, finally carried the day in
