Part 49

Plutarch's perception of the early periods of Roman history was perhaps not strictly exact; but he comprehended very clearly the state of the parties in the age of the Gracchi. On the one side were the nobles and the rich, some of whom were noble and some were not; on the other side were the people, the mass, the poor. The struggle was now between rich and poor, and the rich often became the leaders of the poor for the purpose of political distinction and influence, and hence the name populares. Probably few states have ever presented the spectacle of the striking contrast between wealth and poverty which the Roman state exhibited from the time of the Gracchi; a class of rich, rich by hereditary wealth and by all the modes of acquiring wealth which the possession of office and the farming of the public revenues offered to them; a class of poor who were born poor, who had little industry and few means of exercising it. To this we must add, that though there were many cultivators in the country who might enjoy a moderate subsistence from their small estates, there was a city crowded with poor who had votes, and by their union and numbers mainly determined the elections and the acceptance or rejection of legislative measures. Rome, in fact, was the centre of all political agitation, and the result of a revolution in the city generally determined the dispute between two rival factions. We have still to take into the account a very numerous class of slaves. It is probable that in the earlier periods of Roman history the slaves were comparatively few; in the later republic they became very numerous. They formed a large part of the wealth of the rich, and they were always a dangerous body to the state. The effect of employing slaves generally in agriculture and other occupations was, as it always must be, unfavourable to industry among free men. Slaves, also, were often manumitted, and though the son of a manumitted slave was in all respects on the same footing as a complete Roman citizen, if his father was made such by the act of manumission, yet persons of this condition, and especially those who had been liberated from slavery, were looked upon as a somewhat inferior class. Their connection with the powerful families to which they had belonged, also gave such families great influence in all elections; and as we see in various instances, the class of libertini, manumitted slaves, was viewed as a dangerous body in the state. The equites at Rome can scarcely be called a middle class: they were generally rich and the farmers of the revenues, under the name of publicani. They were often opposed to the senate, but it was an opposition of pure interest, and their wealth made them rather the partisans of the aristocratical than of the popular body. Such were the political elements with which Tiberius Gracchus had to deal, when he attempted a reform which perhaps the times did not render practicable, and for which he certainly did not possess the courage or the judgment or the inflexible resolution which were necessary to secure success. The word in Plutarch which I have here translated nobles is [Greek: dynatoi], the powerful. In other places he calls them the rich ([Greek: plousioi]), the possessors [of public land] ([Greek: ktêmatikoi]), the aristocratical body ([Greek: aristokratikoi]); and perhaps other terms. He calls the plebs, or people as opposed to this class, by various names, of which [Greek: dêmos] is the most common: he also calls them the multitude ([Greek: plêthos]), the many ([Greek: hoi polloi]), and other like names.

It is impossible to attain perfect precision in the use of political terms in a translation of Plutarch; and in order to be critically exact, it would be necessary to load these notes continually with remarks. But this critical exactness is not required here: the opposition of the two orders in the state is intelligible to everybody. The contests in Rome from the time of the Gracchi to the establishment of the monarchy under Augustus, were contests in which the rich and the powerful were constantly struggling among themselves for political supremacy; there was an acknowledged aristocratical and an acknowledged popular party. But the leaders of both parties, with perhaps some few exceptions, were mainly bent on personal aggrandisement. The aristocratical class had a clearer object than the leaders of the popular party: they wished to maintain the power of their order and that of the senate, which was the administering body. The leaders of the popular party could have no clear object in view except the destruction of the power of the senate: the notion of giving the people more power than they possessed would have been an absurdity. Accordingly the depression of the aristocratical body had for a necessary consequence the elevation of an individual to power, as in the case of Cæsar the dictator. Sulla, it is true, was an aristocrat, and he destroyed so far as he could the popular party; but he made himself dictator, and to the last day of his life he ruled all parties with a rod of iron.

The existence of a numerous and needy class who participated in political power without having any property which should be a guarantee for their honest use of it, was the stuff out of which grew the revolutions of Rome. There was a crowded city population, clamorous, for cheap bread, for grants of land, for public shows and amusements, averse to labour, constantly called into political activity by the annual elections, always ready to sell their votes to the best bidders; and a class always ready to use this rabble as a tool for their political and personal aggrandisement. Machiavelli observes (_Istor. Fiorent._ iii.) that the natural enmity which exists between the men of the popular party and the nobles (gli uomini Populari e i Nobili), proceeds from the wish of the nobles to command and of the others not to obey, and that these are the causes of all the evils that appear in states. He adds (iv.) that states, and especially those that are not well constituted, which are administered under the name of republics, often change their government and condition, but the fluctuation is not between liberty and servitude, as many suppose, but between servitude and licence. It is only the name of liberty which is in the mouths of the ministers of licence who are the popular leaders, and the ministers of servitude who are the nobles; both of them wish to be subject neither to the laws nor to men. These remarks, which are peculiarly applicable to Florence and the so-called republics of Italy of that time, apply equally to the Roman state. There are governments, however, to which the name republic can be properly applied, and that of Great Britain is one, which owing to the possession of certain elements have a more stable character. Still the general character of a popular and of an aristocratical party is correctly sketched by Machiavelli.

[56] Plutarch, who is fond of allusions to the Greek poets, here alludes to a passage in the Bacchæ of Euripides, l. 387:

"for e'en in Bacchus' orgies She who is chaste will never be corrupted."

See Bacchæ, ed. Elmsley, l. 317, 834, and the notes.

[57] The temple of Saturn was now used, among other purposes, as the treasury of the state, the Ærarium.

[58] A dolo is described by Hesychius, v. [Greek: Dolônes], in one sense, as a dagger contained in a wooden case, a kind of sword-stick. (See Facciolati, _Lexicon_.) Kaltwasser describes it as a walking-stick containing a dagger, and translates the passage, "he provided himself with a robbers' dagger, without making any secret of it." I think that he wore it concealed, but made no secret of it, which agrees better with the whole context; and Amyot has translated it so.

[59] The word in Plutarch is water jars, _hydriai_ ([Greek: hydriai]), the Roman sitellæ, urnæ or orcæ. The sitellæ were a kind of jar with a narrow neck: they were filled with water so that the wooden lots (sortes) would float at the top, and only one could be there at a time. These lots were used for the purpose of determining in what order the tribes or centuries should vote, for the names of the several tribes or centuries were on the several lots. The vessel into which the voters put their votes (tabellæ), when the order of voting had been fixed for the tribes and centuries, was called cista; and it was a basket of wicker-work or something of the kind, of a cylindrical shape. If Plutarch has used the proper word here, the preliminary proceedings were disturbed by the rich seizing or throwing down the vessels, out of which were to be drawn the lots for determining in what order the tribes should vote. The business had not yet got so far as the voting, which consisted in the voters depositing in a cista one of the tablets (tabellæ), which were distributed among them for this purpose, and which were marked with an appropriate letter to express acceptance of a measure or rejection of it. There is a Roman denarius which represents a man going to put a tabella into a cista: the tabella is marked A, which means Absolvo, I acquit. The letter C (Condemno, I condemn) was marked on the tabella of condemnation. (Eckhel, _Doctr. Num. Vet._ V. 166.) The coin was struck to commemorate the carrying of a law by L. Cassius Longinus B.C. 137, by which the voting in criminal trials (judicia populi) except for perduellio (treason) should be by ballot and not as before by word of mouth.

These remarks are taken from an essay by Wunder (_Variæ Lectiones &c. ex Codice Erfurtensi_), in which he has established the meaning of sitella and cista respectively to be that which Manutius long ago maintained. He observes that in the Roman comitia one sitella would be sufficient, as it was only used for receiving the names of the tribes or centuries, which were put in for the purpose of determining by drawing them out, in what order the tribes or centuries should vote. And accordingly he says that when comitia are spoken of, we never find urns or sitellæ spoken of in the plural number. But he has not mentioned the passage of Plutarch. It may be difficult to determine if Plutarch considered that the preliminary lot-drawing had been gone through, and the people were voting. If he considered the voting to be going on, he has used the wrong word. With this explanation, I leave the word "voting-urns" in the text, which is not the correct Roman word but may be what Plutarch meant. It seems as if he thought that the voting had commenced.

[60] Plutarch writes it Mallius, for the Greeks never place _n_ before _l_.

[61] From this it appears that the vote of each tribe counted as one, and the vote of the tribe was determined by the majority of voters in each tribe. It seems to follow that each tribe had a cista to receive its votes. It is said, the practice was to count the votes when all was over; but they must have been counted as each tribe voted, according to this story. The narrative of Appian is the same (_Civil Wars_, i. 12).

[62] The names of various Roman officers and functionaries were derived from their number, as duumviri (two men), triumviri (three men), decemviri, and so on. Some description was added to the name to denote their functions. There were triumviri agro dando or dividendo, triumviri for the division of public land; duumviri juri dicundo, for administering justice, and so forth.

[63] Appian (_Civil Wars_, i. 13) calls him Quintus Mummius.

[64] Plutarch and other Greek writers translate the Roman word, cliens, by Pélates ([Greek: pelatês]). (See Marius, c. 5, notes.)

[65] Plutarch generally uses Attic coins. Nine oboli were a drachma and a half, or about six sestertii. (See c. 2, note.)

[66] See c. 21.

[67] This Attalus III., the last king of Pergamum, left his kingdom to the Romans on his death B.C. 133, the year of the tribunate of Gracchus. His kingdom comprised the best part of that tract out of which the Romans formed the province of Asia. Pergamum was the name of the capital. This rich bequest was disputed by Aristonikus. (See c. 20.)

[68] Perhaps Q. Pompeius Rufus who was consul B.C. 141, and disgraced himself by a treaty with the Numantines and his subsequent behaviour about it. (Cicero, _De Officiis_, iii. 30; _De Finibus_, ii. 17; Appian, _Iberica_, c. 79.)

[69] Quintus Cæcilius Metellus Macedonicus, who was consul B.C. 143. Kaltwasser says, that Plutarch without doubt means Balearicus, the son of Metellus Macedonicus, which son was consul B.C. 123. Without doubt he means the father, who is mentioned by Cicero as an opponent of Tiberius Gracchus, and he states that an oration of his against Gracchus was preserved in the Annals of Fannius. (_Brutus_, 21.)

[70] Titus Annius Luscus was consul with Q. Fulvius Nobilior B.C. 153. (Cicero, _Brutus_, c. 20; Livius, _Epitome_, 58.)

[71] It is clear that Plutarch believed this to be a genuine speech of Tiberius. It is not an argument that he could have made, nor is it likely that it is a fabrication of any professed speech-writer. It is true that there were many speeches extant among the Romans, which, though mere rhetorical essays, were attributed to persons of note and passed off as genuine speeches. But this is either not one of them, or it has been managed with consummate art. The defence of Tiberius is a blot on his character. He could not avoid knowing that his arguments were unsound. To abdicate, which means to resign a Roman magistracy, was a different thing from being deprived of it. The Tribunes were elected at the Comitia Tributa, but they derived their powers by uninterrupted succession from the consecrated act (Lex Sacrata) done on the Holy Mount and confirmed after the overthrow of the Decemviral power. (Livius, 2, c. 33; 3, c. 55.) On this subject, see Bubino, _Untersuchungen über Röm. Verfassung_, p. 32.

[72] See Caius Gracchus, c. 5. Appian does not mention these measures of Tiberius.

[73] The elections of Tribunes in the time of Cicero were on the 17th of July (_Ad Attic._ i. 1). According to Dionysius the first Tribunes entered on their office on the 10th of December. Kaltwasser suggests that as it was now the summer season, the country people were busy in their fields and could not come to the election, which thus would be in the hands of the townspeople. If Tiberius was killed in July and entered on his office in the previous December, this will agree with what Cicero says of him, "he reigned a few months." (_Lælius_, c. 12.)

[74] A cage, the Roman cavea. This was one of the modes of ascertaining the will of the gods. It was a firm belief among the nations of antiquity that the gods did by certain signs and tokens give men the opportunity of knowing their will. The determination of these signs was reduced to a system, which it was the duty of certain persons, augurs and others, to learn and to transmit. The careful reader will find many other notices of this matter in Plutarch and some in these notes. (See Sulla, c. 6, notes.)

P. Claudius Pulcher, who was consul B.C. 249, and in the command of the Roman fleet off Sicily, despised the omens. The fowls would not eat, which portended that his projected attack on the Carthaginians would be unfavourable; but Claudius said that if they would not eat, they should drink, and he pitched the sacred fowls into the sea. He lost most of his ships in the engagement that followed. (Cicero, _De Natura Deorum_, ii. 3.) The "birds" of Plutarch are "fowls," "pulli."

[75] His name was Fulvius Flaccus; the name of Flaccus belongs to the Fulvii. As he was a friend of Tiberius, it is probable that a Marcus Fulvius Flaccus is meant, who is mentioned in the Life of Caius.

[76] This was P. Mucius Scævola. His colleague L. Calpurnius Piso was conducting the war in Sicily against the slaves who had risen. The Senate, according to Appian (_Civil Wars_, i. 16), was assembled in the Temple of Fides on the Capitol. The circumstances of the death of Tiberius are told by Appian (_Civil Wars_, i. 15. 16), who states that there was a fight between the partisans of Tiberius and the other party before the Senate met.

[77] To make Plutarch consistent, we must suppose that Caius had returned to Rome. (See c. 13.)

[78] I can find nothing more about him. This strange punishment was the punishment for parricide.

[79] Cicero (_Lælius_, c. 11) and Valerius Maximus (4, c. 7) make Lælius ask these questions.

[80] Aristonikus was an illegitimate son of Eumenes II. King of Pergamum. He disputed the will of Attalus III. and seized the kingdom. Publius Licinius Crassus Mucianus Dives, who was sent against him B.C. 131, was unsuccessful, and lost his life; but Aristonikus was defeated by the consul M. Perperna B.C. 130, and taken to Rome, where he was strangled in prison.

[81] This is P. Licinius Crassus Mucianus Dives, c. 9. 20.

[82] This does not appear in the extant Lives which bear the name of Nepos; but what we have under his name is a spurious work of little value except the Life of Atticus.

[83] D. Junius Brutus Gallæcus was consul with P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica Serapio B.C. 138. He completely subdued the Gallæci (people of Galicia) and the Lusitani who occupied a part of modern Portugal, and carried the Roman arms to the western extremity of the Spanish peninsula.

[84] He was the colleague of Brutus B.C. 138, as just stated, and Pontifex Maximus in the year of the death of Tiberius. He must have died soon after going to Asia; for Publius Licinius Crassus Mucianus Dives was Pontifex Maximus B.C. 131 (c. 9); but the remark in the Epitome of Livius (lib. 59) that he was the first Pontifex Maximus who went beyond the limits of Italy is not true. The Pontifex Maximus, who was the chief of the college of Pontifices, was chosen for life. He could not be deprived of his office, nor, it seems, could he give it up. Augustus allowed his old rival Lepidus to keep his dignity of Pontifex Maximus till his death. (Dion Cassius, 49, c. 15.)

[85] The line is from Homer's _Odyssey_, i. 47.

[86] This is lost, and also Plutarch's Life of Scipio Africanus Major.

[87] The word by which Plutarch has translated Forum is Agora ([Greek: agora]). A Forum was an open place or area, and is often generally used for Public Place, such as almost every town has. _The_ Forum at Rome was the Forum Romanum, which was situated between the Palatine and Capitoline Hills; it was surrounded by buildings and was the chief place for the administration of justice and for the public assemblies. To keep away from the Forum here means to take no share in public affairs. Sometimes, Forensic (forensis), a term comprehending all that relates to public business and the proceedings in the courts, is opposed to Domestic (domesticus), private, as we see in Cicero (_Ad Attic._ i. 5, &c.).

[88] As thirty-one was the age at which according to a law (Lex Annalis Villia) a man could become Quæstor, Tiberius, who was Quæstor before he was tribune, must have been older than Plutarch says that he was; unless he was elected Quæstor before the legal age.

[89] The island of Sardinia was made a Roman province B.C. 235.

[90] Lucius Aurelius Orestes and M. Æmilius Lepidus were consuls B.C. 126.

[91] This dream is mentioned by Cicero, _De Divinatione_, i. 26. C. Gracchus told his dream to many persons, before he was elected tribune. It happened while he was a candidate for the quæstorship.

[92] Micipsa, King of Numidia, was the son of Massinissa, who was the firm ally of the Romans in their contest with the Carthaginians in the Second Punic War. At the close of this war, his territory was greatly enlarged by the addition of the dominions of Syphax and a large part of the Carthaginian territory. He was succeeded by Micipsa, who died B.C. 118. The Carthaginian territory which subsequently formed a large part of the Roman province of Africa was a rich corn country, and one of the granaries of Rome under the latter Republic and the Empire.

[93] Gracchus made his defence before the Censors Cn. Servilius Cæpio and L. Cassius Longinus B.C. 124. Gracchus belonged to the class of Equites, and as such he had a Public horse. The censors summoned him to account for leaving his province, and, if he was not able to justify himself, he would be deprived of his horse and marked with the Nota Censoria, in the lists of the Censors, the consequence of which was what the Romans called Ignominia, or temporary civil incapacity.

If Caius was born B.C. 154 and had now (B.C. 124) served twelve years, he entered the army B.C. 136, when he was eighteen. It is true as he here says, that he was only required to serve ten years. This fragment of his speech is preserved by Aulus Gellius (xv. 12), and it is expressed with all the vigour of the best Roman style. A comparison of this fragment with the passages from the speeches of Tiberius Gracchus, which are given by Plutarch, is sufficient to show that Plutarch's extracts are genuine. There appears to be an error in Plutarch as to the "three years." Gellius makes Caius say: "Biennium fui in Provincia;" "I was two years in the province:" and one MS. is said to have "two years" ([Greek: dietia]), which Coraes has adopted in his edition of Plutarch.

[94] Fregellæ was a subject city in the territory of the Volsci. The people wished to have the Roman citizenship, and as it was refused they rebelled. Fregellæ was destroyed by L. Opimius the Prætor B.C. 125. Caius Gracchus was tried B.C. 124 before the Prætor Opimius on the charge of conspiring with the people of Fregellæ. (Velleius, 2, c. 6.)

[95] Plutarch simply says the Plain ([Greek: to pedion]): but he means the Campus Martius, or Field of Mars. Compare Marius c. 34. The Roman writers often call the Campus Martius simply Campus.

The people did not mount on the house-tops to vote, as Amyot and Kaltwasser say, if I understand them right. Crowds came to Rome, who had no votes; they came to see and to affect the elections if they could. Caius was elected tribune B.C. 123, just ten years after his brother's tribunate. The consuls were Quintus Cæcilius Metellus Balearicus, a son of Metellus Macedonicus, an opponent of Tiberius Gracchus, and Titus Quinctius Flamininus. (See Tiberius Gracchus, c. 14 notes.)

[96] Cicero, in _Brutus_, c. 33, and in other passages, bears testimony to the powerful eloquence of Caius Gracchus. Up to the time of Cicero, the orations of Gracchus were the models of oratory which all Romans studied. Cicero says that his speeches did not receive the finishing touch; he left behind him many things which were well begun, but not perfected. The practice of revising speeches for the purpose of publication was common among the Athenian and Roman orators. In manly and vigorous oratory we may doubt if Caius Gracchus ever had his equal among the Romans; and if not among the Romans, where shall we look for his equal?

[97] I have here allowed a word to stand by something of an oversight, to which however there is no objection. Plutarch uses the word "law;" but the Roman word is "Rogatio," which means a Bill, a proposed Law, so called because the form of passing a law was to ask (rogare) the assembly if they would have it. The form of voting was to reject (antiquare) by the formula A., or to confirm (jubere) by the formula U.R. (Uti Rogas), "as you propose," which were marked on the tabellæ or voting-tablets. (Cicero, _Ad Attic._ i. 14.)

To Promulgate a law, or more properly a Rogation, signified among the Romans, to make public (for promulgare is only another form of Provulgare) a proposed law; to give notice of a proposed measure and its contents. To promulgate a law in modern times means to make known a law which is already a law; but the expression is not much used.

[98] P. Popillius Lænas was also consul with P. Rupilius B.C. 132. He returned to Rome after the death of Caius Gracchus.