hopelessly subordinate position in a state, there was a perpetual
antagonism between the patricians and the plebeians, between the
aristocracy and the commonalty. This led to a temporary change under
Servius Tullius, when property took the place of pedigree in
establishing a man's rank and influence; but, owing to the peculiar
method of voting adopted, the power of the commons was not greatly
increased. However, they had made their influence felt, and were
encouraged. The overturning of the scheme by Tarquin favored a union of
the two orders for the punishment of that tyrant, and they combined;
but it was only for a time. When the danger had been removed, the tie
was found broken and the antagonism rather increased, so that the
subsequent history for five generations, though exceedingly
interesting, is largely a record of the struggles of the commons for
relief from the burdens laid upon them by the aristocrats.

The father passed down to his son the story of the oppression of the
patricians, and the son told the same sad narrative to his offspring.
The mother mourned with her daughter over the sufferings brought upon
them by the rich, for whom their poor father and brothers were obliged
to fight the battles while they were not allowed to share the spoil,
nor to divide the lands gained by their own prowess. The struggle was
not so much between patrician and plebeian as between the rich and the
poor. It was intimately connected with the uses of money in those
times. What could the rich Roman do with his accumulations? He might
buy land or slaves, or he might become a lender; to a certain extent he
could use his surplus in commerce; but of these its most remunerative
employment was found in usury. As there were no laws regulating the
rates of interest, they became exorbitant, and, as it was customary to
compound it, debts rapidly grew beyond the possibility of payment. As
the rich made the laws, they naturally exerted their ingenuity to frame