A Three-Layer Analysis (TLA) of Livy, History of Rome, Book 3
However, after tyranny was overthrown, another danger remained.
The injured side could expand punishment without limit in the name of justice.
The injured side could treat the enemy not through individual responsibility, but as a collective enemy.
The injured side could lose the end condition of punishment.
In other words, those who hated the cruelty of the Decemvirate could fall into the same form of cruelty through their own anger.
This study reads the warning of Valerius and Horatius as a demand for self control.
They tried to prevent the movement for freedom from becoming a revenge OS.
2. Abstract
Valerius and Horatius warned that people who hated cruelty were about to become cruel because the side that had overthrown the tyranny of the Decemvirate was entering the danger of becoming a revenge OS through its own anger and sense of justice.
The anger of the plebeians and the army had good reason.
The Decemvirate had suspended appeal.
It had removed tribunician power.
It had stayed in office after its term.
It had intimidated opposition inside the Senate.
Appius used judicial form for private desire and caused the Verginia incident.
Therefore, anger against the Decemvirate was not wrong in itself.
However, if the anger of the injured side moves toward unlimited punishment, expansion of the enemy concept, neglect of procedure, and lack of an end condition, the movement for freedom changes into a new cruel OS.
The warning of Valerius and Horatius was a correction of recognition.
They did not defend the Decemvirate.
They did not deny the injury of the plebeians.
They tried to return the political energy of the movement from revenge to institutional recovery.
The conclusion of this study is as follows:
Valerius and Horatius warned that people who hated cruelty were about to become cruel because they saw the danger that the movement for freedom could fall from overthrowing tyranny into unlimited revenge. If the side that overthrew the cruelty of the Decemvirate expanded punishment and placed revenge above institutional purpose, the republican OS would not recover freedom. It would move into a new cruel OS ruled by the winners. Their warning was a control mechanism that prevented the anti tyranny movement from becoming a revenge OS and returned it to institutional recovery, appeal, tribunician power, and plebeian resolutions.
3. Research Method
This study uses TLA, or Three Layer Analysis.
TLA divides historical material into three layers.
The first layer is Fact. It organizes Livy’s account of the decemvirs staying in office after their term, the criticism by Valerius and Horatius, the conciliatory argument of Gaius Claudius, the intimidation by Appius, the decline of Trust T in the army, the Verginia incident, the secession to the Sacred Mount, the resignation of the Decemvirs, the restoration of the tribunes, appeal, and plebeian resolutions, the accountability of Appius, and the restraint of further revenge.
The second layer is Order. It extracts the structure behind the facts. It analyzes how justified anger can become revenge, how the V of a freedom movement can split, how the winners can gain unlimited power, why procedure must also apply to enemies, and how a mediation interface reconnects the state OS.
The third layer is Insight. It derives lessons that can be applied to modern states and organizations.
This study also uses OS Organizational Design Theory R1.34.00.00.
The main concepts are as follows.
Revenge OS
A revenge OS is a condition in which justified injury turns into expansion of punishment, expansion of the enemy concept, unlimited punishment, neglect of procedure, and a new oppressive OS.
SC
SC means self control.
In a movement for freedom, SC does not mean denying anger or injury.
It means connecting anger to public purpose SP and stopping unlimited revenge.
Common IC
Common IC means institutional consistency that applies both to allies and enemies.
To rebuild a republican OS, procedure must also apply to enemies.
Mediation Interface
A mediation interface is a role that connects injury, demands, concessions, and institutional recovery between divided sides, and reconnects the state OS.
End Condition of Punishment
An end condition of punishment is an institutional condition that defines where accountability ends.
Without this condition, punishment can become a chain of revenge.
4. Layer 1: Fact
In Livy’s Book 3, the tyranny of the Decemvirate and the later risk of revenge OS appear step by step.
In Section 38, the decemvirs stayed in office after their term had ended.
This was the beginning of the collapse of legitimacy.
In Section 39, Valerius and Horatius criticized the decemvirs as acting with king like tyranny.
This shows that corrective actors still remained inside the political system.
In Section 40, Gaius Claudius argued for reconciliation in the whole state.
Conciliatory information also appeared from inside the family and the Senate.
In Section 41, Appius intimidated the opposition and closed discussion.
Warnings were blocked by the closure of IA.
In Section 42, the soldiers lost their will to fight because of resentment toward the decemvirs.
This was a signal of the decline of Trust T in the execution environment.
In Sections 44 to 49, the Verginia incident occurred.
Justice without appeal or protection followed Appius’ private desire, and the freedom protection circuit collapsed.
In Sections 50 to 52, the army and the plebeians resisted and seceded to the Sacred Mount.
The execution environment, after losing institutional remedy, moved into correction outside institutions.
In Section 53, the plebeians demanded the tribunes, appeal, and immunity for those who had seceded.
This shows that the center of plebeian demands moved toward institutional recovery, not unlimited punishment.
In Section 54, the decemvirs resigned, tribunes were elected, and those who had seceded were not punished.
The tyrannical OS was stopped, and representative institutions were restored.
In Section 55, appeal, the inviolability of the tribunes, and plebeian resolutions were strengthened.
The freedom protection circuit was institutionally redesigned.
In Sections 56 and 57, the accusation against Appius and the issue of appeal are described.
Here, Rome tested whether procedure also applied to an enemy.
In Section 59, Duilius stopped further revenge.
This was the control of revenge and a return to institutional recovery.
5. Layer 2: Order
The structure of this case is to see the greatest risk after the fall of the Decemvirate not only as the remaining power of tyranny, but as the danger that the side of freedom could become a revenge OS.
Justified injury can easily justify unlimited revenge
The first reason is that the justified injury of the injured side can easily justify unlimited revenge.
The plebeians and the army had truly been injured by the Decemvirate.
Appeal had been lost.
Tribunician power had been removed.
The decemvirs had violated their term.
Opposition had been intimidated.
Opponents had been removed.
The Verginia incident had occurred.
Therefore, anger toward the Decemvirate was natural.
However, the more justified the injury is, the more anger can expand in the following way:
We are the victims.
The other side is cruel.
Anything can be done to a cruel enemy.
Anyone who stops punishment is helping the enemy.
Revenge itself is justice.
When this structure appears, the movement for freedom changes into a revenge OS.
The warning of Valerius and Horatius was an attempt to control this direction before the anger of the injured side became a revenge OS.
After tyranny is overthrown, the winning side also gains power
The second reason is that the side that overthrows tyranny also gains new power as soon as it becomes the winning side.
When the Decemvirate collapsed, the plebeians and the army were no longer only weak victims.
They gained political pressure through the secession to the Sacred Mount.
They were able to demand the tribunes, appeal, and immunity for those who had seceded.
They forced the decemvirs to resign.
They entered a situation in which Appius could be accused.
In other words, the balance of power changed.
At that moment, the injured side could become a subject of institutional recovery.
But it could also become a subject of revenge.
If political superiority had moved toward unlimited revenge instead of institutional recovery, Rome might have moved from the tyranny of the Decemvirate into a revenge OS.
Valerius and Horatius saw this danger.
A movement for freedom can easily connect with revenge
The third reason is that a movement for freedom can easily connect with revenge.
When people who lost freedom try to recover it, anger naturally exists.
There is memory of humiliation.
There is fear.
There are victims.
There is the death of Verginia.
In this condition, a movement for freedom can move in two directions.
One direction is institutional recovery.
Restore appeal.
Restore the tribunes.
Strengthen plebeian resolutions.
Grant immunity to those who seceded.
Individualize accountability.
The other direction is revenge.
Punish the enemy side.
Treat many related people as enemies.
Continue to make the enemy pay for past injury.
Have no end condition for punishment.
Valerius and Horatius warned against the danger that freedom recovery would move toward the second direction.
In this sense, the warning of Valerius and Horatius and the later restraint of further revenge by Duilius belong to the same structure.
They were controls against revenge OS after the recovery of freedom.
Criticizing the cruelty of the other side does not stop one’s own cruelty
The fourth reason is that criticizing the cruelty of the other side is different from stopping one’s own cruelty.
It was right to criticize the cruelty of the Decemvirate.
However, that alone does not guarantee that the other side will not become cruel.
People can call their own violence justice.
People can call their revenge necessary punishment.
People can call their unlimited anger freedom recovery.
In that condition, the action may look cruel from outside, but the actors themselves may not recognize it as cruel.
That is why Valerius and Horatius pointed out that the people who hated cruelty were themselves moving toward cruelty.
This phrase returned attention from criticism of the enemy to self control.
In OS Organizational Design Theory, this was the recovery of SC.
To rebuild the republican OS, procedure must also apply to enemies
The fifth reason is that procedure must also apply to enemies in order to rebuild the republican OS.
The Decemvirate had suspended appeal.
As a result, the freedom protection circuit had collapsed.
If the side that overthrew the Decemvirate then punished the decemvirs and their supporters without appeal or procedure, what would happen?
It would repeat the same structure from the opposite side.
In Sections 56 and 57, the accusation against Appius and the issue of appeal are described.
This scene tests whether appeal is a universal institutional principle that also applies to an enemy.
This point is important.
Freedom recovery does not mean that only allies become free.
Freedom recovery means that even enemies are punished under procedure and within limits.
The warning of Valerius and Horatius was a warning to return to this universal institutional principle.
6. Layer 3: Insight
The core of this case is to read the warning of Valerius and Horatius as a demand for SC from the anti tyranny side.
Model of becoming a revenge OS
The structure by which a movement becomes a revenge OS can be expressed as follows:
Becoming a Revenge OS
＝ Collectivization of Injury
× Expansion of the Enemy Concept
× Unlimited Power of the Winning Side
× Lack of an End Condition of Punishment
× Non Institutional Survival of the Revolutionary Faction OS
When this model appears, the movement for freedom becomes a new oppressive OS.
Even if the Decemvirate is overthrown, the state OS does not recover if punishment becomes unlimited.
Only the rulers change.
Model of suppressing the chain of revenge
To suppress the chain of revenge, the following structure is necessary:
Suppression of the Chain of Revenge
＝ Public Purpose SP
× Self Control SC of the Winning Side
× Individualization of Punishment Targets
× Immunity for Seceders
× Mediation Function
× End Condition of Punishment
This formula explains the role of Valerius and Horatius.
They did not deny the injury of the plebeians.
They did not defend the tyranny of the Decemvirate.
Rather, they tried to return the state OS after the fall of tyranny to public purpose SP, not revenge.
Model of the V split in a freedom movement
The V of a freedom movement can split into two directions.
Institutional Recovery V
＝ Recovery of the Freedom Protection Circuit
× Appeal
× Tribunician Power
× Plebeian Resolutions
× Accountability
× End Condition of Revenge
Revenge V
＝ Injured Feeling
× Expansion of the Enemy Concept
× Unlimited Punishment
× Justice of the Winning Side
× Neglect of Procedure
Valerius and Horatius warned against the danger that a movement for freedom would move into the second direction.
They did not say, “Stop recovering freedom.”
They said, “Do not let freedom recovery fall into revenge V.”
Model of recovery of common IC
To rebuild the republican OS, common IC had to be restored.
Recovery of Common IC
＝ Reconfirmation of Appeal
× Restoration of Tribunician Power
× Institutionalization of Plebeian Resolutions
× Application of Procedure to Enemies
× Individual Accountability
× Restraint of Further Revenge
When this model works, Rome after the fall of the Decemvirate does not become a revenge state.
It returns to a redesigned republican OS.
In Sections 53 to 55, the tribunes, appeal, and plebeian resolutions were strengthened.
In Sections 56 and 57, appeal became an issue even for Appius, an enemy.
In Section 59, Duilius restrained further revenge.
This shows that the restoration of correction circuits was necessary to avoid becoming a revenge OS.
Model of mediation interface
Valerius and Horatius were not merely anti Decemvirate politicians.
They were mediation interfaces that reconnected the divided state OS.
Mediation Interface
＝ Recognition of Plebeian Injury
× Promotion of Patrician Concession
× Stop of the Decemvirate
× Restoration of the Tribunes
× Restoration of Appeal
× Restraint of Revenge
× Reintegration into Normal Institutions
Their role was not only to defeat the enemy.
It was to return the state OS to a form that could restart after the enemy had been defeated.
Operating model
The process by which the warning of Valerius and Horatius worked can be organized in five stages.
The first stage is justified anger against tyranny.
Justified Anger
＝ No Appeal
× Absence of Tribunes
× Privatization of Justice
× Verginia Incident
× Collapse of Trust T in the Army and the Plebeians
This anger became energy for freedom recovery.
The second stage is correction outside institutions.
Correction Outside Institutions
＝ Destruction of the Fasces
× Military Secession
× Secession to the Sacred Mount
× Withdrawal of Approval from the Decemvirate
Up to this point, the action can be understood as a reaction against the collapsed governing OS.
The third stage is the risk of becoming a revenge OS.
Risk of Becoming a Revenge OS
＝ Justified Injured Feeling
× Collective Anger
× Expansion of the Enemy Concept
× Unlimited Punishment
× Neglect of Procedure
At this point, the warning of Valerius and Horatius became necessary.
The fourth stage is recognition that hatred of cruelty can approach cruelty.
Approach to Cruelty
＝ Hatred of Cruelty
× Justification of Revenge
× Expansion of Punishment
× Suspension of Procedure
× New Cruelty
This was a very important correction of recognition.
Hating the cruelty of the other side does not guarantee that one will not become cruel.
The fifth stage is connection to institutional recovery.
Connection to Institutional Recovery
＝ Restoration of the Tribunes
× Restoration of Appeal
× Strengthening of Plebeian Resolutions
× Individual Accountability
× Restraint of Further Revenge
× Reintegration into Normal Institutions
As a result, Rome after the fall of the Decemvirate moved not into revenge by the winners, but into the redesign of the republican OS.
Causal Chain
The causal chain of this case can be organized as follows:
The Decemvirs Stay in Office after Their Term
→ Tyranny without Appeal
→ Valerius and Horatius Criticize Them as King Like Tyrants
→ Appius Intimidates the Opposition
→ Trust T in the Army Declines
→ Verginia Incident
→ Anger of the Crowd
→ Secession of the Army and the Plebeians to the Sacred Mount
→ Legitimacy of the Decemvirate Collapses
→ The Plebeian Side Gains Political Advantage
→ Demands for Punishment and Anger Increase
→ The Risk of Becoming a Revenge OS Appears
→ Valerius and Horatius Warn That Those Who Hate Cruelty Are Moving toward Cruelty
→ The Center of Plebeian Demands Moves toward the Tribunes Appeal and Immunity for Seceders Instead of Expansion of Punishment
→ The Decemvirs Resign
→ Tribunes Are Elected
→ Appeal Inviolability of the Tribunes and Plebeian Resolutions Are Strengthened
→ Individual Accountability Is Applied to Appius
→ Duilius Stops Further Revenge
→ Rome Avoids Becoming a Revenge OS and Reconnects the Republican OS
This causal chain shows that, after the collapse of tyranny, the greatest danger was not only the inability to overthrow the Decemvirate.
There was another danger.
After victory, the side that recovered freedom could itself become a revenge OS.
Valerius and Horatius saw this second danger.
Final Insight
The final insight is as follows:
Valerius and Horatius warned that people who hated cruelty were about to become cruel because they saw the danger that the side which overthrew the tyranny of the Decemvirate would move toward unlimited revenge through injured feeling and a sense of justice. It was right to hate the cruelty of the Decemvirate. However, if that hatred moved toward expansion of punishment targets, expansion of the enemy concept, neglect of procedure, and lack of an end condition of revenge, the movement for freedom would change into a new cruel OS. A republican OS needs not only the overthrow of tyranny, but also control of revenge after victory, individualization of punishment, and reconnection of political energy to the freedom protection circuits of appeal, tribunician power, and plebeian resolutions.
7. Implications for the Modern World
This analysis can be applied to modern companies, public institutions, schools, and nonprofit organizations.
Modern organizations also have anger against cruelty and injustice.
Anger against harassment.
Anger against corrupt management.
Anger against concealment.
Anger against authoritarian bosses.
Anger against unfair personnel decisions.
This anger often has good reason.
However, if anger becomes unlimited, the organization breaks in another way.
Investigation becomes public shaming.
Accountability becomes personal attack.
Reformers become revengers.
Justice becomes pleasure in punishment.
Procedure is neglected.
A climate appears in which anything can be done to people seen as enemies.
In this condition, the organization is not becoming healthy.
Only the ruling side has changed.
Modern organizations need the following designs.
1. Do not deny anger
The anger of the injured side may have good reason.
If it is denied, the organization forces silence again.
2. Connect anger to institutions
Anger must be connected to institutional recovery.
It should be connected to consultation systems, appeal systems, third party investigation, prevention of recurrence, and clear punishment standards.
3. Individualize punishment targets
The responsibility of the offender must not be confused with surrounding people, groups, or attributes.
If the enemy concept expands, the organization becomes a revenge OS.
4. Protect procedure
The idea that procedure is unnecessary because the other side is bad is dangerous.
Protecting procedure does not mean protecting the offender.
It is a barrier that prevents the organization OS from becoming a revenge OS.
5. Set an end condition
Accountability is necessary.
However, the organization must define where punishment ends and when prevention measures are completed.
Without an end condition, reform becomes a chain of revenge.
6. Place a mediation interface
A mediation interface is necessary to connect the injured side, management, the workplace, and third parties.
Without this interface, anger only deepens division.
The lesson for modern organizations is as follows:
It is right to hate injustice and cruelty. However, if that anger moves toward expansion of punishment targets, neglect of procedure, and lack of an end condition, the reform movement becomes a revenge OS. Organizational recovery requires not denial of anger, but connection of anger to institutional recovery, individual accountability, prevention of recurrence, and end conditions.
8. Conclusion
This case is very important for understanding Rome after the fall of the Decemvirate.
The Verginia incident destroyed the legitimacy of the Decemvirate.
The army and the plebeians seceded to the Sacred Mount.
The Decemvirate became unable to govern.
Up to this point, the movement was correction outside institutions against the tyrannical OS.
However, after this point, another danger appeared.
The side that recovered freedom could become a revenge OS.
People hate cruelty.
But anger against cruelty often creates new cruelty.
The other side is evil, so anything is allowed.
We are victims, so punishment does not need to stop.
Protecting procedure means helping the enemy.
If this recognition spreads, the side that defeated tyranny creates the next tyranny.
The words of Valerius and Horatius were a correction of recognition to stop this danger.
They did not deny the anger of the plebeians.
They did not defend the cruelty of the Decemvirate.
Rather, they demanded self control of anger in order to connect the recovery of freedom after tyranny to the rebuilding of the republican OS.
In this sense, they were not merely anti Decemvirate politicians.
They were mediation interfaces.
They carried plebeian demands to the Senate.
They pressed the patrician side to make concessions.
They helped make the resignation of the Decemvirs possible.
They prepared the conditions for the return of the plebeians.
They connected the crisis to institutional legislation.
Then, in Section 59, Duilius restrained further revenge.
This shows that the danger pointed out by Valerius and Horatius was also controlled in institutional operation.
Therefore, this case shows the maturity of the Roman republican OS.
The maturity of a republican OS does not mean only overthrowing tyranny.
It means being able to control revenge after tyranny is overthrown.
It means not falling into the same cruelty after defeating the enemy.
It means institutionalizing punishment, individualizing its targets, setting end conditions, restoring appeal and tribunician power, and returning to normal institutions.
The same structure exists in modern organizations.
Anger against injustice is necessary.
But anger alone does not rebuild an organization.
If anger is not connected to institutions, reform becomes revenge.
Justice becomes pleasure in punishment.
Investigation becomes public shaming.
Reformers become new rulers.
Then the organization OS has not become healthy.
Only the ruling side has changed.
The conclusion of this study is as follows:
A movement for freedom is not completed only by overthrowing tyranny. It is completed only when the side that hates tyranny does not fall into the same cruelty, controls revenge, individualizes punishment targets, designs end conditions, and connects political energy to institutional recovery. The warning of Valerius and Horatius was a demand for self control SC directed at the anti tyranny side.
9. Sources
Titus Livius, History of Rome from its Foundation, Book 3. Japanese translation: Iwaya Satoshi, Roma kenkoku irai no rekishi 2, Kyoto University Press, 2008.
OS Organizational Design Theory R1.34.00.00.