Part 50

[99] The erecting of statues to their great men was probably more common at Rome after the conquest of Greece, when they became acquainted with Greek art. Rome at a later period was filled with statues. Though most of the great Romans were distinguished by their military talents, it was not only in respect of military fame that statues were erected; nor were they confined to men as we see in this instance. The daughter of him who conquered Hannibal, the wife of Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, a successful general, a prudent politician and an honest man, the mother of two sons who died in the cause of the people--the memory of such a woman was perpetuated in the manner best suited to the age by an imperishable monument.

[100] A complete view of the legislation of Gracchus is beyond the limits of a note. Part of the subject has been referred to already. (Tiberius Gracchus, c. 8, note.)

The Roman allies (Socii) were subjects of the Roman State, subject to the sovereign power of Rome, a power which was distributed among many members. They bore heavy burdens, particularly in the form of supplies of men and money for war; and they claimed as an indemnification the citizenship (civitas), or admission to the sovereign body, as members of it. The claim was finally settled by the Marsic or Social war. (See Marius and Sulla.)

The law about the price of grain belonged to the class of Laws which the Romans called Frumenteriæ Leges, or Corn Laws; the object of these laws was not to keep up the price of grain, but to furnish it to the poor at a low rate. This low rate however was not effected in the only way in which such an object could profitably be effected, by allowing corn to come to Rome from all parts free of duty, but by buying grain with the Public money and selling it to the poor at a lower rate. This law of Gracchus proposed that corn should be sold to the people (plebs) monthly at the rate of 5/6 of the as for a modius. This is the first recorded instance in Roman History of the poor being relieved in this manner. The city was crowded with poor who had few or no means of subsistence, but had votes in the annual elections and were members of the sovereign body. The consequences of such a measure might be easily foreseen: the treasury became exhausted, and the people were taught to depend for their subsistence, not on their industry, but on these almost gratuitous distributions of grain. This allowance, which was made monthly, added to the sale of their votes at the annual elections and the distributions on extraordinary occasions, of corn and oil (Dion Cassius, 43, c. 31) helped a poor Roman to live in idleness. This system of distributions of corn, sometimes free of cost, being once established was continued all through the Republic and under the Empire. It was impossible to stop the evil, when it had been rooted, and in the crowded city of Rome under the Empire, it was an important duty of the adminstration to prevent famine and insurrection by provisioning the city. C. Julius Cæsar reduced the number of those who received this corn relief from 320,000 to 150,000. The number of receivers must have increased again, for Augustus reduced the number to 200,000. This subject of the distribution of corn among the poor is an important element in the history of the later Republic. Dureau de la Malle (_Économie Politique des Romains_, ii. 307) has compared it with the English mode of providing for the poor by the Poor Laws; but though there are some striking points of resemblance between the two systems, there are many differences, and the matter requires to be handled with more knowledge and judgment than this writer has shown in order to exhibit it in its proper light.

Plutarch's account of the changes made by Gracchus in the body of the Judices is probably incorrect. The law of Gracchus related to trials for offences, such as bribery at elections (ambitus), and corruption in the administration of offices (repetundæ), which belong to the class of trials called at a later time judicia publica or public trials. In the trials for these offences, those who had to decide on the guilt or innocence of the accused, were called judices; and the judices were taken only from the senators. But as the persons accused of offences, of the kind above mentioned generally belonged to the senatorian order, it was found very difficult to get a man convicted. Some notorious instances of acquittals of persons, who had been guilty of corruption, had occurred just before Gracchus proposed his law. According to Appian, his law gave the judicial power solely to the equites, who formed a kind of middle class between the senators and the people. But the equites were not a safe body to intrust with this power. To this body belonged the publicani, or publicans as they are called in our translation of the Gospels (_Matt._, ch. v., v. 47), who farmed the revenues in the provinces. A governor who winked at the extortion of the farmers of taxes would easily be acquitted, if he was tried for maladministration on his return to Rome. The equites at Rome had an interest in acquitting a man who favoured their order. Cicero remarks (_In Verrem_, Act Prima, 13) that the judices were selected out of the equites for near fifty years until the functions were restored to the senate. He is alluding to the change Sulla made B.C. 83; but it appears that there were some intermediate changes. Cicero adds that during all this time there was never the slightest suspicion of any eques taking a bribe in the discharge of his functions as judex. Appian says that they soon became corrupt; and Cicero, who is in the habit of contradicting himself, says in effect the same thing (_In Verrem_, lib. iii. 41; _Brutus_, c. 34). The judices of Gracchus condemned Opimius, whose character Cicero admired. (See c. 18, notes.) The condemnation was either honest or dishonest: if honest, Cicero is a dishonest man for complaining of the sentence (_Pro Plancio_, c. 29): if dishonest then Cicero here contradicts what he has said elsewhere. (See also _In Pisonem_, c. 39.)

I have used the Roman word judices, which is the word that Plutarch has translated. These judices were selected out of the qualified body by lot (at least this was the rule sometimes) for each particular trial. A judge, generally the prætor, presided, and the guilt or innocence of the accused was determined by the judices by a majority of votes; the votes were given by ballot at this time.

This law of Gracchus about the judicia is a difficult subject, owing to the conflicting evidence.

[101] The character of the Roman roads is here accurately described. The straight lines in which they ran are nowhere more apparent than in England, as may be seen by inspecting the Ordnance maps. That from Lincoln to the Humber is a good example. It is conjectured that some of the strong substructions at La Riccia (Aricia) on the Appian Road near Rome may be the work of Caius; but I do not know on what this opinion rests. (See _Classical Museum_, ii. 164.)

The Roman mile is tolerably well ascertained. It is variously estimated at 1618 and 1614 yards, which is less than the English mile. The subject of the stadium, which was the Greek measure of length, is fully examined by Colonel Leake, _London Geographical Journal_, vol. ix.

[102] Caius Fannius Strabo must not be confounded with the historian of the same name. He was consul B.C. 122 with C. Domitius Ahenobarbus. Cicero speaks of an excellent speech of his against the proposal of Gracchus to give the Latins the full citizenship, and the suffrage to the Italian allies. (Cic., _Brutus_, c. 26.)

[103] M. Fulvius Flaccus was consul B.C. 125, and during his year of office he defeated the Transalpine Ligurians. He was an orator of no great note, but an active agitator. He perished with Caius Gracchus (c. 16): his house was pulled down, and the ground made public property.

[104] Plutarch's Life of the younger Scipio Africanus is lost. Scipio died B.C. 159, six years before Caius was tribune. He had retired to rest in the evening with some tablets on which he intended to write a speech to deliver before the people on the subject of the Agrarian Law of Tiberius Gracchus and the difficulties of carrying it into effect. He was found dead in the morning, and it was the general opinion that he was murdered. His wife Sempronia was suspected, and even Cornelia his mother-in-law, as well as C. Gracchus. C. Papirius Carbo, one of the triumviri for dividing the land with Caius and Fulvius Flaccus is distinctly mentioned by Cicero as one of the murderers. As to him, there is no doubt that he was believed to be guilty. It is also admitted by all authorities that there was no inquiry into the death of Scipio; and Appian adds that he had not even a public funeral.

[105] This was the first Roman colony that was established beyond the limits of the Italian Peninsula, which Velleius reckons among the most impolitic measures of Gracchus. The colony of Gracchus appears to have been neglected, and the town was not built. At the destruction of Carthage heavy imprecations were laid on any man who should restore the city. The colony was established by Cæsar the Dictator.

The foundation of a Roman colony was accompanied with solemn ceremonials, to which Plutarch alludes. The anniversary day of the foundation was religiously observed. On some Roman coins there is a representation of a man driving a yoke of oxen and a vexillum (standard), which are the symbols of a Roman colony.

[106] Plutarch has here used the word oligarch ([Greek: oligarchikos]), one who is a friend to the party of the Few as opposed to the Many. The meaning of an oligarchy, according to Aristotle (_Politik_, 4, c. 4), is a government in which the rich and those of noble birth possess the political power, being Few in number. But the smallness of the number is only an accident: the essence of an oligarchy consists in the power being in the hands of the rich and the noble, who happen in all countries to be the Few compared with the Many.

[107] This was a proverbial expression, of which different explanations were given. Sardinia, it is said, was noted for a bitter herb which contracted the features of those who tasted it. Pausanias (x. 17) says it is a plant like parsley, which grows near springs, and causes people who eat it to laugh till they die; and he supposes that Homer's expression (_Odyssey_ xx. 302), a Sardinian laugh, is an allusion to this property of the plant: but this is not a probable explanation of the expression in Homer.

[108] Some fragments of the Letters of Cornelia are extant, but there is great difficulty in determining if they are genuine, and opinions are divided on the subject. Gerlach, in his essay on Tiberius and Caius Gracchus (p. 37), maintains their genuineness against the opinion of Spalding and Bernhardy. The Fragments are collected by Roth.

[109] The story in Appian (_Civil Wars_, i. 25) is somewhat different.

[110] The Roman stilus, which Plutarch translates by _graphíum_ ([Greek: grapheion]), "a writing instrument," was of metal, iron or brass, sharp at one end and flat at the other. The point was used for writing on tablets which were smeared with wax: the other end was used for erasing what was written and making the surface even again. The word was often used by the best Roman writers in a metaphorical sense to express the manner and character of a written composition, and from them it has passed into some of the modern languages of Europe, our own among the rest: thus we speak of a good style, a bad style of writing, and so on.

[111] The form of the decree was, Videant consules ne quid respublica detrimenti capiat (Livius, 3, c. 4), which empowered the consuls or consul, as the case might be, to provide that the commonwealth sustained no damage. The word detrimentum, which signifies damage caused by rubbing off, had a tacit reference to the majestas of the Populus Romanus. The majestas (majesty) of the state is its integrity, its wholeness, any diminution of which was an offence; and under the Emperors the crime of majestas, that is majestas impaired, was equivalent to high treason. The decree here alluded to was only adopted, as Livius expresses it, in the utmost extremity, when the state was in danger; its effect was to proclaim martial law, and to suspend for the time all the usual forms of proceeding.

[112] This was one of the hills or eminences in Rome: it was the plebeian quarter.

[113] This is the Roman term which corresponds to the _kerukeion_ ([Greek: kêrykeion]) of Plutarch, or the staff which ambassadors or heralds carried in time of war when they were sent to an enemy.

[114] The Cretans were often employed as mercenaries in the Roman army, as we see from passages in Livius (37, c. 41).

[115] This is not Plutarch's word, but it expresses his meaning, and he uses the word elsewhere. Amnesty is Greek and was used by the later Greek writers in a sense the same or nearly the same as in modern times, to express a declaration on the part of those who had the sovereign power for the time that they would pardon those who had in any way acted in opposition to such power.

[116] The Pons Sublicius as it was called, the oldest bridge over the Tiber at Rome.

[117] As usual in such cases, there is a dispute about the person or at least his name. Velleius (ii. 6,) and Aurelius Victor called him Euporus. Both names are Greek, and the faithful slave was doubtless a Greek, of whom there were now many at Rome. They were valued for their superior acquirements and dexterity, and filled the higher places in great families. The slaves from barbarous nations, that is, nations not Greek, were used for meaner purposes.

[118] Kaltwasser remarks that Aurelius Victor (_De Viris Illustribus_, c. 55) says that Caius died in the grove of Furina, the goddess of thieves, whose sacred place was beyond, that is on the west side of the Tiber, and that Plutarch appears to have confounded this with the name of the Furies, the Greek Erinnyes. This may be so; or Victor may have made a mistake, which he often has done.

[119] Opimius must have been as great a knave as Septimuleius, for the fraud was palpable. Stories of this kind are generally given with variations. Plinius (_N.H._ 33, c. 14) says it was the mouth that was filled with lead, and that Septimuleius had been a confidential friend of Caius. This was the first instance in Rome of head money being offered and paid; but the example was followed in the proscriptions of Sulla, and those of the triumviri Lepidus, M. Antonius, and Cæsar Octavianus.

[120] I have followed Kaltwasser in translating the Greek word [Greek: aponoia], which signifies madness, desperation, or a desperate deed, by discord, for the sake of maintaining something like the opposition between the two words which exists in the original.

[121] Caius Opimius was consul with Q. Fabius Maximus Allobrogicus, B.C. 121, the year of the death of Caius. The history of his conduct in Libya is told by Sallustius in the Jugurthine war. He was one of ten commissioners who were sent, B.C. 112, to settle the disputes between Adherbal, the son of Micipsa, and Jugurtha, the illegitimate son of Micipsa's brother. The commissioners were bribed by Jugurtha and decided in his favour. Opimius and the rest of them were tried for the offence, B.C. 109, and banished. Opimius died in great poverty at Dyrrachium (Durazzo) in Epirus. (Sallustius, _Jugurthine War_, c. 134; Velleius, ii. 7.) Cicero thinks that Opimius was very hardly used after his services in crushing the insurrection at Fregellæ and putting down the disturbances excited by Caius Gracchus and Fulvius Flaccus: he calls him the saviour of the state, and laments his condemnation. (Cicero, _Pro Plancio_, c. 28, &c.; _Brutus_, c. 34; &c.)

[122] M. Fulvius Flaccus was consul, B.C. 125, during which year he defeated the Transalpine Ligurians.

[123] The legislation of the Gracchi, particularly of Caius Gracchus, comprehended many objects, the provisions as to which are comprehended under the general name of Semproniæ Leges, for it was the fashion to name a law after the gentile name of him who proposed it. The most important of the measures of Caius have been mentioned by Plutarch, with the exception of a law about the provinces. At the outbreak of the Social War, B.C. 91, the Roman provinces comprehended Sardinia, Corsica, Sicily, the Spanish Peninsula, the whole of which, however, was not subdued, Cisalpine Gaul, Asia, Macedonia, Achæa, Transalpine Gaul, and some others of less note.

The original sense of the word provincia had no reference to a territory, though this is the later sense of the word and the common usage of it. The functions of the prætor urbanus who stayed at Rome were called his provincia, that is, the administration of justice was his provincia or business. The word is used in the sense of a function or office by Livius with reference to a time when there was no provincia in the later sense of the word. In the time of Cicero, provincia signified a territory out of Italy, which was administered by a Roman governor. The term Italy, at this time, did not comprise the whole peninsula, but only that part which was south of the rivers Rubico and Macra. The primary meaning of the word is confirmed by its etymology; provincia is a shortened form of providentia, which also appears in the shape prudentia. Providentia signifies "foresight," "superintending care," and so forth; and it is formed on the same principle as beneficentia, benevolentia, and other Latin words which are of a participial character. The etymology of Niebuhr (proventus) is untenable, and that which I have partly adopted (Smith's _Dict. of Antiquities_, art. "Provincia") is no better. Since writing that article, I saw that the word is only another form of providentia, and a friend has pointed out to me that Mr. G. C. Lewis first suggested this as the origin of the word in his Essay on the Government of Dependencies, London, 1841, Note H. p. 353. If this explanation of the word is correct, the true orthography is provintia, but I have not yet been able to find it on an inscription.

The old practice was for the Senate, after the elections of the Consuls and Prætors, to name two provinces which should be given to the consuls after the consulship was expired. The two consuls settled by lot or by agreement which province of the two they should have. As the consuls were chosen before the two consular provinces were determined by the senate, it was in the power of the senate to give what provinces they pleased to the consuls, and so make the appointment either a favour or not. A law of Gracchus enacted that the two consular provinces should be determined before the election of consuls, and that the senate should not have the power, which they had formerly exercised, of prolonging a man's government in a province beyond the year. This law manifestly limited the power of the Senate, though some writers conceive that it was enacted for the advantage of that body as some compensation for their loss of the judicial power.

Plutarch has treated the subject of the Gracchi with perfect impartiality. He has given them credit for good motives, and approved of their measures in general, but he has not disguised their faults. Appian considered that the measures of Tiberius were for the public good, but that his conduct was not judicious. Sallustius also admits that the Gracchi did not conduct themselves with sufficient moderation (_Jugurthine War_, c. 46); but Sallustius belonged to the popular party, and he approved of their measures. Most of the other Roman writers express an unfavourable opinion of the Gracchi. Florus however gives them credit for good intentions, but disapproves of the means by which they attempted to carry their measures into effect. That part of the work of Livius which treated of this period is lost, but we may collect his opinions of the Gracchi from the Epitomes of the lost books, and the general tenor of his History. The measures of the Gracchi were estimated by the rule of party spirit. The judgment of Cicero, who often mentions the Gracchi, is both for and against. His expressed opinion, whatever might be his real opinion, varied with circumstances. If we only knew his opinion from the second oration against the Agrarian Law of Rullus (ii. 5), we should consider him as approving of all the measures of the Gracchi. When he delivered that oration, Cicero had just been elected Consul: he was a Novus homo, a new man as the Romans called him, who was the first of his family to attain to the high honours of the State, and he had obtained the consulship as a friend of the people, as a popular man (Popularis). In his treatise on Friendship and other of his writings, he gives a contradictory judgment of the Gracchi; he says that Tiberius Gracchus aimed at the kingly power, or rather in fact was king for a few months; he calls the two Gracchi degenerate sons of their father; he extols the murderers of Tiberius Gracchus; he commiserates the hard fate of Opimius after saving the state by putting Caius Gracchus to death. All this was written or said after he was consul, after he had done what the murderers of the Gracchi had done, after he had put to death Catilina and his accomplices without trial contrary to the constitution, contrary to a special law which Caius Gracchus had carried that no Roman citizen should be put to death without a duly constituted trial; after he had, like Nasica and Opimius, made himself a murderer by putting men to death without letting them be tried according to law; whether they were guilty or not, is immaterial; they were put to death without trial, contrary to a principle of justice which, before he became guilty himself, Cicero had maintained and defended. The acts of the Gracchi were on record and well understood; but Cicero made his opinion of their acts depend not on his convictions, but on his interests; it is to him mainly that we may trace the common notion that the Gracchi were merely a couple of designing demagogues. The Gracchi were not wise enough or firm enough to be good reformers, but few reformers in so difficult a situation have left behind them so fair a reputation for honest intention. There was a great mass of contemporary materials for the history of the Gracchi, consisting of the speeches of the two brothers, of the numerous speeches made against them, the history of Polybius, who could not have overlooked the Gracchi in his account of the Numantine war, the history of Fannius, and other materials which Gerlach has enumerated in his Essay on the Gracchi. It is plain from Plutarch's narrative, that he used these authorities; and if we consider how far removed he was from the time of the Gracchi, and his character, we may conclude that he has given as impartial a view of the times as he could collect from contemporary evidence. He may have made mistakes, and some mistakes we cannot help considering that he has made; but he can hardly have made any mistake in his representation of the nature of the reforms which the two brothers attempted, of the opposition that they encountered, and of their general character.

_Misenum._ Misenum was on the coast of Campania near Cape Miseno, a favourite residence of the wealthy Romans, who built villas there. The house of Cornelia had many occupants. It became the property of Caius Marius (c. 34), then of Lucius Lucullus, and finally of the Emperor Tiberius, who died here. It was seated on a hill which commanded an extensive sea-view.

In the last sentence of this chapter I have adopted the reading of Sintenis ([Greek: phylattomenês]), which is necessary for the sense.