The historians' history of the world in twenty-five volumes, volume 05

by Unknown

CHAPTER XV. THE GRACCHI AND THEIR REFORMS

TIBERIUS GRACCHUS

It appears that before the time of Scipio’s election to conduct the Numantian War, it had become a prevalent opinion that some measures were necessary to arrest the prevailing social evils. The frightful excesses of the Servile War called attention still more strongly to the subject; and in the year that Scipio achieved the conquest of Numantia a leader appeared who was endowed with courage, firmness, self-confidence, ability, eloquence, and every requisite for political success, except a larger experience and a larger share of patience and self-control.[b] A. H. Beesley thus vividly paints the crying evils of the Roman state:

“Everywhere Rome was failing in her duties as mistress of the civilised world. Her own internal degeneracy was faithfully reflected in the abnegation of her imperial duties. When in any country the small farmer class is being squeezed off the land; when its labourers are slaves or serfs; when huge tracts are kept waste to minister to pleasure; when the shibboleth of art is on every man’s lips, but ideas of true beauty in very few men’s souls; when the business sharper is the greatest man in the city, and lords it even in the law courts; when class magistrates, bidding for high office, deal out justice according to the rank of the criminal; when exchanges are turned into great gambling-houses, and senators and men of title are the chief gamblers; when, in short, ‘corruption is universal, when there is increasing audacity, increasing greed, increasing fraud, increasing impurity, and these are fed by increasing indulgence and ostentation; when a considerable number of trials in the courts of law bring out the fact that the country in general is now regarded as a prey, upon which any number of vultures, scenting it from afar, may safely light and securely gorge themselves; when the foul tribe is amply replenished by its congeners at home, and foreign invaders find any number of men, bearing good names, ready to assist them in robberies far more cruel and sweeping than those of the footpad or burglar’—when such is the tone of society, and such the idols before which it bends, a nation must be fast going down hill.

“A more repulsive picture can hardly be imagined. A mob, a moneyed class, and an aristocracy almost equally worthless, hating each other, and hated by the rest of the world; Italians bitterly jealous of Romans, and only in better plight than the provinces beyond the sea; more miserable than either, swarms of slaves beginning to brood revenge as a solace to their sufferings; the land going out of cultivation; native industry swamped by slave-grown imports; the population decreasing; the army degenerating; wars waged as a speculation, but only against the weak; provinces subjected to organised pillage; in the metropolis childish superstition, wholesale luxury, and monstrous vice. The hour for reform had surely come. Who was to be the man?”[c]

Ti. Sempronius Gracchus was son of one of the few Romans in whom public spirit prevailed over the spirit of party. Though personally hostile to the great Scipio, we saw him interfere between him and his foes. After the death of Africanus, the chiefs of the party offered him the hand of Cornelia, the only surviving daughter of the hero; and from this marriage twelve sons and one daughter were born in rapid succession. The eldest, Tiberius, saw the light about 166 B.C., but the father died before his eldest son reached man’s estate, and Cornelia was left a widow with her children. The daughter lived; but of all the twelve sons only two grew up—Tiberius, and Caius who was nine years younger. To the education of these precious relics Cornelia devoted all the energies of her masculine mind. She even refused an offer to share the throne of the king of Egypt. Her dearest task was to watch the opening capacities of her boys. Such was her hope of their greatness that she used to say she would be known not as the daughter of Scipio, but as the mother of the Gracchi.

According to the fashion of the day, Greek teachers were called in to educate the boys. Blossius of Cumæ, and Diophanes a Mytilenean exile, are mentioned as the instructors, and in later life as the friends, of Tiberius. Scarcely had Tiberius assumed the garb of manhood when he was elected into the college of augurs. At the banquet given to celebrate his installation, App. Claudius, the chief of the senate, offered him his daughter’s hand in marriage.

When the proud senator returned home, he told his wife that he had that day betrothed their daughter. “Ah!” she cried, “she is too young; it had been well to wait a while—unless, indeed, young Gracchus is the man.” Soon after his marriage he accompanied Scipio to Carthage, where he was the first to scale the walls.

The personal importance of Gracchus was strengthened by the marriage of Scipio with his only sister. But this marriage proved unhappy. Sempronia had no charms of person, and her temper was not good; Scipio’s austere manners were little pleasing to a bride; nor were children born to form a bond of union between them.

[137-133 B.C.]

It was when Gracchus was about thirty years old (137 B.C.) that he served as quæstor in Spain. Before this, when he travelled through Etruria to join the army, he had noted her broad lands tilled not by free yeomen as of old, but by slaves. Soon after this the Slave War broke out. He spoke his sentiments freely, and public opinion designated him as the man who was to undertake the thankless office of reformer. In all places of public resort the walls were covered with inscriptions calling on Gracchus to vindicate the rights of all Roman citizens to a share in the state lands. He presented himself as a candidate for the tribunate, and was elected.

On December 10th, 134 B.C., he entered upon office. He had already prepared men for his projected legislation by eloquent speeches, in which he compared the present state of Italy with her olden time, deplored the decay of her yeomen and farmers, and the lack of freemen to serve in the legions. All his arguments pointed towards some measures for restoring the class of small landed proprietors who were dwindling fast away.

[133 B.C.]

In a short time his plan was matured and his bill brought forward. He proposed to revise the Licinian law of 364 B.C., by which it was enacted that no head of a family should hold more than five hundred jugera (nearly 320 acres) of the public land; but to render the rule less stringent, he added that every son of the family might, on becoming his own master, hold half that quantity in addition.[74] Whoever was in possession of more was to give up the excess at once to the state; but to obviate complaints of injustice, he proposed that those who gave up possession should be entitled to a fair compensation for any improvements they had made during the term of their possession. All public lands were to be vested in three commissioners (triumviri), who were to be elected by the tribes. Their business was to distribute the public lands to all citizens in needy circumstances, and to prevent lands so distributed being again absorbed into the estates of the rich land owners; the sale of the new allotments was altogether prohibited.

The greater part of these public lands had fallen into the hands of the rich land owners. They had held them, on payment of a small yearly rent, for generations; and many of these persons had forgotten perhaps that their possession could be disturbed. After the first surprise was over, the voices of these land holders began to be heard; but as yet the majority of the senate showed no disfavour to the law of Gracchus. The persons interested alleged that the measure, though it pretended only to interfere with state lands, did in fact interfere with the rights of private property; for these lands were held on public lease and had been made matters of purchase and sale, moneys were secured on them for the benefit of widows and orphans, tombs had been erected on them: if this law passed, no man’s land could be called his own.

If Gracchus had proposed a forcible and immediate resumption of all state lands, without compensation for moneys spent on them, these arguments would have had more weight. Rights arise by prescription; and if the state had for a long course of time tacitly recognised a right of private property in these lands, it would have been a manifest injustice thus abruptly to resume possession. But the Licinian law was evidence that the state claimed a right to interfere with the tenure of the public lands. That the Romans felt no doubt about the right is shown by the fact that in framing his law Tiberius was assisted by his father-in-law App. Claudius, the chief of the senate, and by P. Mucius Scævola, consul of the year.

It was certain that the law would be carried in all the country tribes, because it was precisely in these tribes that the strength of Gracchus lay, and all his arguments show that he knew it. It was to the country people, who had lost or were afraid of losing their little farms, that he spoke.[b] A few specimens of the fervent eloquence of Tiberius still remain in the fragments[75] quoted in Plutarch[e] and Appian.[g] Plutarch describes the present event as follows:

“Tiberius defending the matter, which of itself was good and just, with such eloquence as might have justified an evil cause, was invincible; and no man was able to argue against him to confute him, when, speaking in the behalf of the poor citizens of Rome (the people being gathered round about the pulpit for orations), he told them, that the wild beasts through Italy had their dens and caves of abode, and the men that fought, and were slain for their country, had nothing else but air and light, and so were compelled to wander up and down with their wives and children, having no resting-place nor house to put their heads in. And that the captains do but mock their soldiers, when they encourage them in battle to fight valiantly for the graves, the temples, their own houses, and their predecessors. For, said he, of such a number of poor citizens as there be, there cannot a man of them show any ancient house or tomb of their ancestors, because the poor men go to the wars, and are slain for the rich men’s pleasures and wealth; besides, they falsely call them lords of the earth, where they have not a handful of ground that is theirs. These and such other like words being uttered before all the people with such vehemency and truth, so moved the common people withal, and put them in such a rage, that there was no adversary of his able to withstand him. Therefore, leaving to contradict and deny the law by argument, the rich men put all their trust in Marcus Octavius, colleague and fellow-tribune with Tiberius in office, who was a grave and wise young man, and Tiberius’ very familiar friend. That the first time they came to him, to oppose him against the confirmation of this law, he prayed them to hold him excused, because Tiberius was his very friend. But in the end, being compelled to it through the great number of the rich men that were importunate with him, he withstood Tiberius’ law, which was enough to overthrow it.”[e]

The morning came. The Forum was crowded with people expecting the completion of the great measure which was to restore some share in the broad lands of Italy to the sons of those who had won them. Strange faces were seen everywhere: vine-dressers from Campania and the Auruncan hills, peasants from the Sabine and Æquian valleys, farmers of valley and plain from the Clanis to the Vulturnus.

Gracchus rose. His speech was received with loud applause by the eager multitude. When he had ended, he turned to the clerk, and bade him read over the words of the law before it was put to the vote. Then Octavius stood up and forbade the man to read. Gracchus was taken by surprise. After much debate he broke up the assembly, declaring that he would again bring on his defeated bill upon the next regular day of meeting.

The intervening time was spent in preparing for the contest. Gracchus retaliated upon the veto of Octavius by laying an interdict on all public functionaries, shut up the courts of justice and the offices of police, and put a seal upon the doors of the treasury. Further, he struck the compensation clauses out of his bill, and now simply proposed that the state should resume possession of all lands held by individuals in contravention of the Licinian law.

On the day of the second assembly Gracchus appeared in the Forum escorted by a bodyguard. Again he ordered the clerk to read the bill; again Octavius stood forth, and barred all proceedings. A violent scene followed, and a riot seemed inevitable, when two senators, friends of Gracchus—one named Fulvius Flaccus—earnestly besought him to refer the whole matter to the senate. Gracchus consented. But his late impatient conduct had weakened whatever influence his name possessed in the great council, and his appearance was the signal for a burst of reproaches. He hastily left the house, and returning to the Forum gave out that on the next day of assembly he would for the third time propose his measure; and that, if Octavius persisted in opposition, he would move the people to depose their unfaithful tribune.

As the day approached, Gracchus made every effort to avoid this desperate necessity; but Octavius repelled every advance, and on the morning of the third assembly, Gracchus rose at once and moved that Octavius should be deprived of the trust which he had betrayed.

The country tribe, which obtained by lot the prerogative of voting first, was called, and its suffrage was unanimous for the deposition of Octavius; sixteen tribes followed in the same sense; the eighteenth would give a majority of the thirty-five, and its vote would determine the question. As this tribe came up to vote, Gracchus stopped the proceedings, and besought Octavius not to force on the irrevocable step. The tribune wavered; but he caught the eye of one of his rich friends, and turned coldly from Tiberius. Then the eighteenth tribe was called, and by its vote Octavius was in a moment stripped of his sacred office.[b]

“These acts of Tiberius Gracchus,” says Beesly, “are commonly said to have been the beginning of revolution at Rome; and the guilt of it is accordingly laid at his door. And there can be no doubt that he was guilty in the sense that a man is guilty who introduces a light into some chamber filled with explosive vapour, which the stupidity or malice of others has suffered to accumulate. But, after all, too much is made of this violation of constitutional forms and the sanctity of the tribunate. The first were effete, and all regular means of renovating the republic seemed to be closed to the despairing patriot, by stolid obstinacy sheltering itself under the garb of law and order. The second was no longer what it had been—the recognised refuge and defence of the poor. The rich, as Tiberius in effect argued, had found out how to use it also. If all men who set the example of forcible infringement of law are criminals, Gracchus was a criminal. But in the world’s annals he sins in good company; and when men condemn him, they should condemn Washington also. Perhaps his failure has had most to do with his condemnation. Success justifies, failure condemns, most revolutions in most men’s eyes. But if ever a revolution was excusable this was; for it was carried not by a small party for small aims, but by national acclamation, by the voices of Italians who flocked to Rome to vote. How far Gracchus saw the inevitable effects of his acts is open to dispute. But probably he saw it as clearly as any man can see the future. Because he was generous and enthusiastic, it is assumed that he was sentimental and weak, and that his policy was guided by impulse rather than reason. There seems little to sustain such a judgment other than the desire of writers to emphasise a comparison between him and his brother.”[c]

The bill itself was then passed by acclamation, and three commissioners destined to execute its provisions were elected—Tiberius himself, his father-in-law App. Claudius, his brother Caius, then a youth of twenty, serving under Scipio in Spain. The law was not deemed safe unless it was intrusted for execution to Tiberius and his kinsmen.

In a few weeks Gracchus had risen to the summit of power. He seldom stirred from home without being followed by a crowd. The Numantian War and the Servile War still lingered, and the government of the senate was not in a condition to defy attack. That body now was thoroughly alarmed, and Gracchus soon proceeded to measures which touched them in their tenderest point. Attalus Philometor, king of Pergamus, the last of the line of Eumenes, was just dead, and had bequeathed his kingdom with all his lands and treasure to the Roman people. In ordinary times the senate would at once have assumed the disposition of this bequest; but Gracchus gave notice that he would propose a bill to enact that the moneys should be distributed to those who were to receive allotments of public land, in order to assist them in purchasing stock, in erecting farm buildings, and the like; and he added that he would bring the subject of its future government before the people without allowing the senate to interfere. He thus openly announced a revolution.

When Gracchus next appeared in the senate house, he was accused of receiving a purple robe and diadem from the envoy of the late king of Pergamus. T. Annius, an old senator, who had been consul twenty years before, openly taxed the tribune with violating the constitution. Gracchus, stung to the quick by this last assault, indicted the old consular for treason against the majesty of the people. Annius appeared; but before Gracchus could speak, he said: “I suppose, if one of your brother tribunes offers to protect me, you will fly into a passion and depose him also.” Gracchus saw the effect produced, and broke up the assembly.

Moreover, many of his well-wishers had been alarmed by a law, by which he had made the triumviri absolute judges, without appeal, on disputed questions with regard to property in land. Many allotments of public land had been granted, whose titles had been lost; and every person holding under such condition saw his property at the mercy of irresponsible judges.

Gracchus felt that his popularity was shaken, and at the next assembly he thought it necessary to make a set speech to vindicate his conduct in deposing Octavius. The sum of his arguments amounts to a plea of necessity. It is true that the constitution of Rome provided no remedy against the abuse of power by an officer, except the shortness of time during which he held office and his liability to indictment at the close of that time. The tribunician authority, originally demanded to protect the people, might have turned against the people. But was it not open to Gracchus to propose a law by which the veto of a single tribune might be limited in its effect? Or might he not have waited for the election of new tribunes, and taken care that all were tried friends of his law? Instead of this he preferred a coup-d’état, and thus set an example which was sure to be turned against himself.[76]

The violent language of Nasica and his party made it plain that in the next year, when his person was no longer protected by the sanctity of the tribunician office, he would be vigorously assailed. He therefore determined to offer himself for re-election at the approaching assembly of the tribes. But his election was far from secure. Harvest-work occupied the country voters; many had grown cold; the mass of those who resided in the city were clients and dependents of the nobility. It was to regain and extend his popularity that he now brought forward three measures calculated to please all classes except the senatorial families. First, he proposed to diminish the necessary period of military service. Secondly, he announced a reform of the superior law courts, by which the juries were to be taken not from the senators only, but from all persons possessing a certain amount of property. Thirdly, he provided an appeal in all cases from the law courts to the assembly of the people.

These measures, which in altered forms were afterwards carried by his brother Caius, were only brought forward by Tiberius. But this was enough. His popularity returned in full tide.

When the day of the election came, the prerogative tribe gave its vote for Gracchus and his friends; so also the next. But it was objected that the same man could not be chosen in two successive years; and after a hot debate the assembly was adjourned till next day.

It wanted yet some hours of nightfall. Gracchus came forth into the Forum, clad in black, and leading his young son by the hand. In anticipation of his untimely end, he committed his precious charge to his fellow-citizens. All hearts were touched. The people surrounded him with eager gesticulations, and escorted him home, bidding him be of good cheer for the morrow. Many of his warmest adherents kept guard at his doors all night.[b]

Roman Courtyard Fountain

“The father’s affection and the statesman’s bitter dismay,” says Beesly, “at finding the dearest object of his life about to be snatched from him by violence need not have been tinged with one particle of personal fear. A man of tried bravery, like Gracchus, might guard his own life indeed, but only as he regarded it as indispensable to a great cause. That evening he told his partisans he would give them a sign next day if he should think it necessary to use force at his election. It has been assumed that this proves he was meditating treason. But it proves no more than that he meant to repel force forcibly if, as was only too certain, force should be used, and this is not treason. No other course was open to him. The one weak spot in his policy was that he had no material strength at his back. Even Sulla would have been a lost man at a later time, if he had not had an army at hand to which he could flee for refuge, just as without the army Cromwell would have been powerless. But it was harvest-time now, and the Italian allies of Gracchus were away from home in the fields. The next day dawned, and with it occurred omens full of meaning to the superstitious Romans.”[c]

The adjourned assembly met that morning upon the Capitol, and the area in front of the temple of Jupiter was filled chiefly by the adherents of Gracchus, among whom the tribune was himself conspicuous, in company with his Greek friend and preceptor Blossius of Cumæ. The senate also assembled hard by in the temple of Faith. Nasica rose and urged the presiding consul to stop the re-election. But Scævola declined.[77]

On this, Fulvius Flaccus left the senate, informed Gracchus of the speech of Nasica, and told him that his death was resolved upon. Then the friends of Gracchus girded up their gowns and armed themselves with staves, for the purpose of repelling force by force. In the midst of the uproar Gracchus raised his hand to his head. His enemies cried that he was asking for a crown. Exaggerated reports were carried into the senate house, and Nasica exclaimed, “The consul is betraying the republic: those who would save their country, follow me!” So saying, he drew the skirt of his gown over his head, after the manner used by the pontifex maximus in solemn acts of worship. A number of senators followed, and the people respectfully made way. But the nobles and their partisans broke up the benches that had been set out for the assembly, and began an assault upon the adherents of Gracchus, who fled in disorder. Gracchus abandoned all thoughts of resistance; he left his gown in the hands of a friend who sought to detain him, and made towards the temple of Jupiter. But the priests had closed the doors; and in his haste he stumbled over a bench and fell. As he was rising, one of his own colleagues struck him on the head with a stool; another claimed the honour of repeating the blow; and before the statues of the old kings at the portico of the temple the tribune lay dead. Many of his adherents were slain with him; many were forced over the wall at the edge of the Tarpeian rock, and were killed by their fall. Not fewer than three hundred lost their lives in the fray.

Caius had just returned from Spain,[78] and asked leave to bury his brother’s corpse. This was refused. The triumphant party ordered the bodies of Tiberius and his friends to be thrown into the Tiber before morning. Thus flowed the first blood that was shed in civil strife at Rome.

Tiberius Gracchus must be allowed the name of Great, if greatness be measured by the effects produced upon society by the action of a single mind, rather than by the length of time during which power is held, or the success that follows upon bold enterprises. He held office not more than seven months; and in that short time he so shook the power of the senate, that it never entirely recovered from the blow. His nature was noble; his views and wishes those of a true patriot. But he was impatient of opposition, and by his abrupt and violent conduct provoked a resistance which he might have avoided. When the moment of action came, his temper was too gentle, or his will too irresolute, to take the bold course which his own conduct and that of the senate had rendered necessary.

When Scipio, in the camp before Numantia, heard of his kinsman’s end, he exclaimed in the words of Homer:

“So perish all and every one who dares such deeds as he!”

But the sequel will show that it was not so much of the political measures of Gracchus that Scipio disapproved, as of the impatience which he had shown and the violence which he had used in carrying them. Such defects of character were of all most displeasing to a soldier and a stoic.

RETURN AND DEATH OF SCIPIO THE YOUNGER

[133-132 B.C.]

The struggle had now commenced between the oligarchy and the democracy. This struggle was to last till the dictator Sulla for a time restored the senate to sovereignty, which was wrested from them again by a dictator yet more potent than Sulla. But we should be wrong to assume that the senate and the oligarchy were always identical. At times they were so, for at times the violent party among the nobles were in command of a majority in the senate; but a moderate party always existed, who stood between the nobility and the democracy. It was the violent party, headed by Nasica, not the body itself, which was responsible for the death of Gracchus. The senate did not support them.

The people were allowed to proceed quietly to the election of a new commissioner in the place of Gracchus, and their choice fell on P. Licinius Crassus, brother by blood of the consul Scævola, who had been adopted into the family of the Crassi. His daughter had lately been married to young Caius Gracchus, and he now became the acknowledged leader of the party.

Nor did the senate attempt to shield Nasica from popular indignation. He was branded as the murderer of Gracchus, and his friends advised him to quit Italy, though, as chief pontifex, he was prohibited from doing so. No long time after he died at Pergamus, and Crassus succeeded him in the pontificate.

But in the course of the next year (132 B.C.) the senate was induced to give the new consuls a commission to inquire into the conduct of those who had abetted Gracchus. They began their proceedings by associating with themselves C. Lælius, a man of known moderation. Before the inquiry commenced, Lælius sent for Blossius, and questioned him privately as to his part in the late disturbances. He excused himself on the ground that he had only followed the tribune’s orders.

“That,” said Lælius, “is no excuse. What would you have done if he had ordered you to set the Capitol on fire?”

“Gracchus,” replied Blossius, “could never have given such an order.”

“But if he had?” insisted Lælius.

“Then,” said Blossius, “I would have done it.”

This bold partisan, however, was suffered to escape. Diophanes of Mytilene, another of the preceptors of Gracchus, was arrested by the consuls and put to death. Others also lost their lives, and some escaped death by exile. These whole proceedings were in violation of the laws of appeal; for the consuls had no legal power to try and condemn within the city.

It was not probably till the autumn of this year that Scipio celebrated his Numantian triumph. It was not gorgeous with spoils and a long train of captives, for the Numantians had buried themselves and their possessions beneath the ruins of their city. But the presence of Scipio, at this moment, was or might be pregnant with results; and as he passed in procession to the Capitol, many eyes turned to him with expectation. It might be thought that his approval of the death of Gracchus sufficiently indicated what part he intended to take. But it was possible for him to disapprove of the conduct of Gracchus without disapproving of his purpose. The countrymen of Latium and Italy had fought under him at Carthage and at Numantia. It was known that among the rest he had shown especial honour to a young soldier of Arpinum, of humble birth and rude manners. On one occasion he had invited this youth to supper, and placed him by his side; and when some flatterer asked where a general could be found to succeed him, “Perhaps here,” he said, laying his hand on the young soldier’s arm. This youth was C. Marius.

Whatever doubt might rest on Scipio’s intentions, he soon made it clear that he had no intention of holding out a hand to the civic populace. One of the partisans of Gracchus, by name C. Papirius Carbo, a man of ready wit, but in character turbulent, reckless, and unprincipled, hoped to raise himself to importance by means of this rabble. He was tribune for the year, and had carried a law for extending the use of the ballot into the legislative assemblies of the people. He now brought forward another bill, making it legal to re-elect a tribune to a second year of office. Scipio and Lælius opposed the measure, and the former spoke so warmly against it, that it was rejected by the tribes, though young C. Gracchus made his first public speech in its favour. It was then that Carbo publicly demanded of Scipio what he thought of the death of Gracchus. “That he was rightly put to death,” Scipio promptly replied. At these words an angry shout was raised. Scipio turned sternly to the quarter from which it came. “Peace,” he said, “ye stepsons of Italy; remember who it was that brought you in chains to Rome.”

[131-130 B.C.]

Early in the same year, however (131 B.C.), an incident occurred which also parted Scipio from Crassus. The consuls for the year were Crassus himself and L. Valerius Flaccus. The former was pontifex maximus, the latter was flamen of Mars. It happened that one Aristonicus, a bastard son of the last Eumenes, had raised an insurrection in the mountain districts near Pergamus, and matters had become so serious that a consular army was required. Both consuls were eager for command; but by reason of their sacred offices they were both legally unable to leave Italy, and Scipio’s tried skill in war pointed him out as the fittest man for command. Yet such was the popularity of Crassus, that out of thirty-five tribes, two only voted for Scipio and the rest for him. Considering a vote of the people as superior to the law, he completed his levies and set out for Pergamus, never to return. Scipio retired from Rome in disgust.

In this same year the censorship was held by Q. Metellus and Q. Pompeius—an event noted by all the historians as memorable, since now for the first time two men of plebeian blood were elected to the most august magistracy of the state. It is rather matter of wonder that an artificial distinction, which for all practical purposes was obsolete, should have been so long retained in the censorship, than that it should now have ceased.

If Crassus had returned, he might have taken more active steps to diminish the violence which the democratic leaders were beginning to encourage. But early in the year 130 B.C. he was defeated by Aristonicus in a pitched battle, and taken prisoner. The Roman statesman and jurist, deeming slavery intolerable, purposely struck the barbarian who had captured him in the face with his sword-belt, and was instantly cut down. His head was carried to Aristonicus, his body interred at Smyrna.

About the same time died App. Claudius. The natural leader of the Gracchan party would now have been C. Gracchus. But this young man had withdrawn from public life at the advice of his mother Cornelia. Consequently fresh power fell into the hands of the reckless Carbo, who was supported by Fulvius Flaccus; and the whole character of the party became more positively democratic.

These leaders sought to recover their popularity with the country tribes by calling the Agrarian law into fresh life. Of the three commissioners elected for the year C. Gracchus still appeared on the list; the vacancies made by the deaths of Crassus and App. Claudius were filled by Carbo and Flaccus.

The rich landholders had endeavoured to baffle the law by passive resistance. To foil this policy, Carbo and his colleagues issued a proclamation, calling for information against all who had not duly registered themselves as holders of public land. The call was readily obeyed, and the triumvirs were soon overburdened with names. The next step was to decide on the rights of the present holders, and to determine the boundaries between the private and the public lands in each estate. This was a task of extreme delicacy, and here the loss of Crassus was sensibly felt. The ignorant and reckless Carbo raised up a host of formidable opponents.

Scipio leaving Rome

[130-129 B.C.]

Portions of the public land had often been alienated by grant or sale. The holders were now, in consequence of Carbo’s proclamation, suddenly called upon to produce their title deeds, which in many cases were missing; so that a vast number of these holders were liable to be stripped of lands which were undoubtedly their own. Further, in cases where persons held property partly public and partly private, there were often no documents to show which part was public and which private. The commissioners acted in the most arbitrary way, and exasperated a vast number of persons throughout all Italy; and thus a new popular party was called forth, which exercised a most important influence on the events of the next fifty years. In Carbo’s rash haste to win the Roman countrymen he recked not of the hostility of Latins and Italians; and those who had lately worshipped Gracchus now rose like one man to oppose those who now pretended to represent Gracchus.

These new opponents of the Agrarian law had no mind to join the Roman oligarchs, but turned to Scipio and supplicated him to undertake their cause. They had claims upon him, for they had volunteered to fill his army when the senate had no money to give him, and he had always manifested sympathy with them. Averse as he was from party politics, he did not shrink from the task, and the moderate party in the senate welcomed his return. He began by moving that a decree should issue for withdrawing from the triumvirs the judicial power with which they had been invested by Gracchus, and transferring the jurisdiction to the consuls. The decree passed, and the task was committed to C. Sempronius Tuditanus, a man of refined taste, fonder of art and literature than of business. But news came of a movement among the Iapydes, a people on the Illyrian frontier; and Tuditanus eagerly seized this excuse for hastening to Aquileia, feeling confident that he could better cope with barbarous enemies than with the more barbarous perplexities of the law.

[129 B.C.]

All proceedings were thus cut short. The senate had taken away jurisdiction from the triumvirs; the consul to whom it was committed had fled. General discontent arose. Scipio was accused of having betrayed Roman interests to the Italians. His enemies spread reports that he had sold himself to the oligarchy, that he intended to repeal the Sempronian law by force, and let loose his Italian soldiery upon the people of Rome.

Scipio felt that it was necessary to explain his motives, and announced his purpose of delivering set speeches, one day in the senate, and the day after in the Forum. The first only of these purposes was fulfilled. By his speech in the senate he pledged himself to maintain the rights of the Latins and Italians against the triumvirs, and to prevent the unjust resumption of the lands that had been granted to them. The senate loudly applauded; and Scipio was escorted home by the mass of the senators with a jubilant crowd of Italians. Many thought this the most glorious day of his life. He retired to rest early, in good health. In the morning he was found dead in his bed. By his side lay the tablets on which he had been noting down the heads of the oration which he had intended to make next day.

The death of Scipio struck consternation into the hearts of the senators. Metullus exclaimed that he had been murdered. It is said that on the neck marks as of strangulation appeared; and when he was carried out to burial the head was covered, contrary to custom. At the moment suspicion attached to C. Gracchus, and to his sister Sempronia, the wife of Scipio. But these unfounded rumours soon passed over; and it was confidently affirmed that Carbo was the murderer. Cicero speaks of it as an undoubted fact; the character, as well as the subsequent history, of the man justifies the belief.[b] Appian,[g] on the other hand, is non-committal, mentioning rumours against Cornelia as well as Sempronia, and adding that “some believe he gave himself this death, because he saw he could not perform what he promised”; while others assert “that Scipio’s slaves under torment confessed that some unknown men they had let in at the back door had strangled him, and that they dared not disclose the murder, because they knew that the people, hating Scipio, rejoiced at his death.” Of modern authorities, George Long[d] thinks “the circumstances of Scipio’s death were suspicious.” But he doubts even that Cicero believed his own charge against Carbo; and adds “the conclusion should be that Scipio died a natural death.” Ihne[f] says: “After a minute and careful examination of the circumstances, there appears to be no reason to doubt that Scipio’s death was natural.” This, however, is perhaps stating the case a little too strongly. Whatever the balance of probability, it can never be proven conclusively whether Scipio died naturally or by violence: in the minds of some investigators, the question will always hold a place in the long list of historical uncertainties.[a]

Thus died the younger Africanus. No public honours attested his public services. The funeral feast was furnished in the most thrifty manner by his nephew Q. Tubero, a rigid stoic, who was glad thus to remind the people of their ingratitude.

Scipio possessed no lofty genius like the great man whose name he bore; yet there was at Rome no one of his own time to be compared with him. To say that he was the best general of the day is little praise, for military talent was at that time scarce; but no doubt his abilities for war would have won him glory in the best times of the republic. His disinterested generosity has been already noticed; at his death he was found to be no richer than when he succeeded to the inheritance of the great Scipio. His love of the country and his habitual reserve led him to shun public life. But the austere manner and severe gravity which he commonly affected gave way among his friends; and there is nothing that more raises our esteem for Scipio than the warm attachment borne to him by such men as Polybius, as well as Lælius, Rupilius, and others, whom Cicero has introduced into his beautiful dialogues. Scipio has usually been represented as a stiff adherent of the oligarchy, but the facts of history disprove this opinion. He might have lived some years to moderate the fury of party strife, to awe the factious, and to support just claims; for at his death he numbered no more than six-and-fifty years. His death at this moment was perhaps the greatest loss that the republic could have suffered.[b]

The general verdict on Scipio is laudatory. Even George Long,[d] who ridicules the usual historical summing-up of great men, finds Scipio worthy of much praise, but Beesly is of such contrary mind that he may well be quoted:

“He is usually extolled as a patriot who would not stir to humour a Roman rabble, but who, when downtrodden honest farmers, his comrades in the wars, appealed to him, at once stepped into the arena as their champion. In reality he was a reactionist who, when the inevitable results of those liberal ideas which had been broached in his own circle stared him in the face, seized the first available means of stifling them. The world had moved too fast for him. As censor, instead of beseeching the gods to increase the glory of the State, he begged them to preserve it. Brave as a man, he was a pusillanimous statesman. It was well for his reputation that he died just then. Without Sulla’s personal vices he might have played Sulla’s part as a politician, and his atrocities in Spain as well as his remark on the death of Tiberius Gracchus—words breathing the very essence of a narrow swordman’s nature—showed that from bloodshed at all events he would not have shrunk. It is hard to respect such a man in spite of all his good qualities. Fortune gave him the opportunity of playing a great part, and he shrank from it. When the crop sprang up which he had himself helped to sow, he blighted it. But because he was personally respectable, and because he held a middle course between contemporary parties, he has found favour with historians, who are too apt to forget that there is in politics, as in other things, a right course and a wrong, and that to attempt to walk along both at once proves a man to be a weak statesman, and does not prove him to be a great or good man.”[c]

CAIUS GRACCHUS AND HIS TIMES

[129-126 B.C.]

The sudden death of Scipio was followed by a calm. The turbulent Carbo vanishes from the scene, till nine years later he reappears as a champion of the violent oligarchical party. C. Gracchus was still living in retirement. Fulvius Flaccus was content to let the Agrarian law sleep in face of the portentous difficulties created by the measures of the triumvirs. Nor was there anything in foreign affairs to ruffle the general calm. But under this external tranquillity a leaven of agitation was at work. It was not to be expected that the new-born jealousy which had sprung up between the Romans on the one side and the Latins and Italians on the other, would fall asleep. Proposals, however, were set afloat for reconciling these two opposing interests. The Italians were led to hope that they might be made citizens of Rome, on condition that they should not resist the execution of the Agrarian law.

But the burgesses of Rome soon perceived that the admission of the Latins and Italians to the Roman franchise would reduce them to comparative insignificance. All the benefits now derived from the provinces by Romans exclusively must then be shared with a vastly increased number of citizens, and the profits as well as the power of a Roman must be materially diminished. In the year 126 B.C. a large number of Italian strangers flocked to Rome, eager for the promised boon. But by this time public opinion at Rome was so far changed that M. Junius Pennus, one of the tribunes, brought forward what we may call a severe alien-act, by which all strangers were compelled to quit Rome. The successors of Gracchus, however, remained constant to their new policy, and Caius himself was induced to speak in public for the second time. But he was unsuccessful. The law of Pennus was passed; and from this time may be dated that angry contest of feeling between the Romans and the Italians which after thirty-eight years found vent in a bloody war.

When Caius delivered this speech he was quæstor-elect for the next year. He was appointed to serve under the consul L. Aurelius Orestes, when this officer undertook to reduce the Sardinian mountaineers, who had been subjugated by the father of young Gracchus fifty years before. After the first year’s operations Orestes was at a loss for supplies and clothing; and from this difficulty he was relieved by his quæstor, who by the memory of his father and his own persuasive eloquence induced the Sardinian colonists to give voluntarily what the soldiers wanted. Shortly after, envoys arrived at Rome from Micipsa, son of Masinissa, offering, from respect (as they said) for the name of Gracchus, to send supplies of corn to Sardinia. The senate angrily dismissed the embassy. Orestes was directed to remain as proconsul in his province, and his quæstor was ordered to continue in office for a second year.

[126-123 B.C.]

Meanwhile the country party had succeeded in carrying the election of their present chief, Fulvius Flaccus, to the consulship for 125 B.C. He was a man with little force of oratory, but his activity and audacity gave him power, and his unchangeable attachment to the memory of Ti. Gracchus made him respectable. No sooner was he in the consul’s chair than he gave full proof of his headlong temerity by giving notice of a bill for extending the franchise to all the Latin and Italian allies. It was a reform bill sweeping beyond all example. No addition had been made to the Roman territory or the number of tribes since 241 B.C., a period of 116 years, and now at one stroke it was proposed to add to the register a population much more numerous than the whole existing number of Roman burgesses. The tribes felt their interests to be at stake, and the measure of Flaccus was highly unpopular at Rome.

At this moment, the senate adroitly contrived to detach Flaccus upon foreign service. The people of Massilia, old allies of Rome, sent to demand protection against the Salluvians, a Ligurian tribe of the Maritime Alps, and Flaccus was ordered to take command of the army destined to relieve them. He remained in Gaul for more than two years, and was honoured with a triumph in the year 123 B.C. Meantime his great measure for extending the franchise fell to the ground.

But the hopes excited by the impetuous consul were not easily relinquished. The excitement was great throughout Italy, and in one of the Latin colonies the smouldering fire burst into flame.

Fregellæ was a large and flourishing city on the Latin road. It was one of the eighteen colonies which had remained faithful to Rome in the Hannibalic War. It had seen the full franchise conferred on its neighbours at Formiæ, Fundi, and Arpinum at the close of that war. And now the cup was dashed from the very lip. Fregellæ flew to arms, without concert with any other towns; and L. Opimius, one of the prætors, a man of prompt resolution and devoid of pity, was ordered by the senate to crush the insurrection. The gates were opened to him by treachery. Opimius took his seat in the Forum, and exercised a fearful vengeance on the inhabitants, for which he was rewarded by the senate with a triumph. The walls were pulled down, and the colony, stripped of all its rights, was reduced to the condition of a mere market-town (conciliabulum). The example of Fregellæ for a time silenced the claims of the Italians.

Thus triumphant, the senate determined to keep the chiefs of the Gracchan party absent from Rome. Flaccus had not yet finished his Gallic wars; and an order was sent to detain C. Gracchus for a third year in Sardinia. But the young quæstor perceived the drift of this order, and returned to Rome about the middle of the year 124 B.C., to the no small consternation of the senate. He was instantly summoned before the censors then in office to account for his conduct, in order that he might be branded with a public stigma, and thus disqualified from taking his seat in the senate house. He made his defence to the people in a set speech, in which he declared that the senate had no right to keep him employed as quæstor for more than one year. “No one,” he added, “can say that I have received a penny in presents, or have put any one to charges on my own account. The purse which I took out full I have brought back empty; though I could name persons who took out casks filled with wine and brought them home charged with money.” He was triumphantly acquitted, and at once came forward as candidate for the tribunate. The senate exerted all their influence to prevent his election, and succeeded so far that his name stood only fourth on the list. But as soon as he entered office, no one disputed his title to be first.

[123 B.C.]

The die was now cast. For ten years he had held back from public life; but the vexatious course pursued by the senate roused him to action; the pent-up energy of his passionate nature burst forth, and he threw aside all restraints both of fear and of prudence.

Hitherto there had been no proof of the young speaker’s powers. Twice only had he spoken in public, and both times he had been on the losing side. But years of diligent study had passed, and he became the greatest orator that Rome had yet seen. Much as Cicero disliked Gracchus, he speaks with lively admiration of his genius, and laments the loss which Latin literature had sustained by his early death. The care which the young orator bestowed on preparation was extraordinary; he was the first to use regular gesticulation, and in his most fiery outbursts his voice was so modulated as never to offend the ear.

His first measures are marked by that which was the ruling passion of his life—a burning desire to avenge his brother’s death. Nasica was beyond his reach. But others, who had persecuted the friends and followers of Tiberius, were yet alive, and he inveighed against their cruel severity on all occasions. “Your ancestors,” he exclaimed, “suffered not their tribunes to be trampled down. But you—you let these men beat Tiberius to death, and murder his friends without a trial!”

Accordingly he brought a bill aimed at Popilius, who had been the head of the special commission appointed after the death of Tiberius. It declared any magistrate guilty of treason who had punished a citizen capitally without the consent of the people. Before it passed, Popilius left Rome; and the tribes, on the motion of Caius, banished him.

The young tribune next moved that any one who should have been deprived of office by a vote of the people should be incapable of holding any other office—an enactment evidently pointed at his brother’s old opponent Octavius. Fortunately for the honour of Gracchus, he was stopped in his career of vengeance by the intercession of his mother.

He now turned his thoughts to measures of a public nature, and brought forward a series of important bills, long known as the Sempronian laws, so sweeping in their design, as to show that he meditated no less than a revolution in the government of Rome. They may be divided into two classes: first, those which were intended to ameliorate the condition of the people; secondly, those which aimed at diminishing the power of the senate.

(1) Foremost in the first class we may place a bill for renewing and extending the agrarian law of his brother, which was coupled with a measure for planting new colonies in divers parts of Italy, and even in the provinces. The execution of this law was deferred till the next year.

(2) The second Sempronian law was the famous measure by which the state undertook to furnish corn at a low price to all Roman citizens. It provided that any one possessing the Roman franchise should be allowed to purchase grain from public stores at 6⅓ asses the modius, or about twenty-five asses the bushel; the losses being borne by the treasury.

Public measures for distributing corn in times of scarcity had long been familiar to Roman statesmen, and individuals had more than once sought popularity by doles to the poor. But now, for the first time, was a right established by law. The necessary results of such a measure must have been, and were, very fatal. Fifty years later, it was found necessary to limit the quantity sold to five modii (1¼ bushels) a month for each person; and forty thousand citizens were habitual purchasers. Successively demagogues reduced the price, till the profligate Clodius enacted that these 1¼ bushels should be given away without any payment. The dictator Cæsar found no fewer than 320,000 citizens in the monthly receipt of this dole. He reduced the number to 150,000, and Augustus fixed it at a maximum of 200,000 souls. Such was the mass of paupers saddled upon the imperial government by the unwise law of Gracchus.[79]

We now pass on to the measures which aimed at depriving the senate of the great administrative power which of late years it had engrossed.

(1) The first of these touched their judicial power. It has been mentioned that by the famous Calpurnian law (149 B.C.) all provincial magistrates accused of corrupt dealings in their government were to be tried before the prætor peregrinus as presiding judge, and a jury of senators. This was the first regular and permanent court of justice established at Rome. The principle of the Calpurnian law was gradually extended to other grave offences, and in all the superior courts the juries were composed of senators.

These courts had given little satisfaction. In all important cases of corruption, especially such as occurred in the provinces, the offenders were themselves senators. Some of the judges had been guilty of like offences, others hoped for opportunities of committing like offences; extortion was looked upon as a venial crime; prosecutions became a trial of party strength, and the culprit was usually absolved.

Gracchus now took the judicial power altogether out of the hands of the senate, and transferred it to a body of three hundred persons, to be chosen periodically from all citizens who possessed the equestrian rate of property. By this measure he smote the senate with a two-edged sword. For not only did he deprive it of the means of shielding its own members, but he also gave a political constitution to a rival order. The equestrian order, as a political body, entirely distinct from a mere military class, now first received distinct recognition.

It is doubtful whether this measure of reform was followed by the good effects intended by Gracchus. If the governors of provinces were senators, the farmers of the taxes were equites. The new juries had their personal reasons for acquitting corrupt magistrates; for without the countenance of these magistrates they could not demand money from the provincials beyond what was strictly legal. The constitution of these juries formed a chief ground of political contest for the next fifty years.

(2) Another measure which fettered the power and patronage of the senate was the Sempronian law for the assignment of the consular provinces. Hitherto the senate had refrained from determining these provinces till after the elections, and they thus had a ready way of marking displeasure by allotting unprofitable governments to consuls whom they disliked. But Gracchus now ordained that the two consular provinces should be fixed before the elections, and that the new consuls, immediately upon their election, should settle between themselves what provinces each was to administer, either by lot or by agreement (sortitio or comparatio). It was a wise and equitable provision, which remained in force as long as the republic lasted.

(3) A great blow was given to senatorial power by a measure for improving the roads of Italy. Public works of all kinds had hitherto been left to the censors, subject to the approval of the senate. Gracchus now transferred the business to the tribunes.

This account of the chief Sempronian laws shows the spirit which animated Gracchus. It is plain that his main purpose was to diminish the increased and increasing power of the senate. It was no doubt a confusion between the purposes and the results of the Sempronian legislation that swelled the cry against Gracchus in after-times. It is clear, however, that he had no chance of amending the corrupt government of the senatorial oligarchy, unless he first weakened their power; and if he fancied that administrative functions might safely be controlled by a large and fluctuating popular assembly, something may be forgiven to political inexperience. Representative bodies are a modern invention, and the wisest of the ancients found no halting-place between aristocracy and democracy. Gracchus was not without misgivings as to the effects of his legislation. But it was too late to draw back, and his zeal was quickened by the return of Fulvius Flaccus from Gaul. By his measures Gracchus had so won all suffrages, that he and his friend Flaccus were absolute masters of the comitia. Gracchus told the people he had a favour to ask; he proposed as candidate for the consulship C. Fannius, an old comrade of his brother. Fannius was elected as a matter of course, to the rejection of L. Opimius, the senatorial candidate.

[123-121 B.C.]

The tribunician elections followed. Flaccus, though he had been consul, appeared as candidate for an office that had been raised by the Gracchi to sovereign power. But Gracchus was not by his side; for it had been made illegal that the same man should be re-elected tribune. However, there were not candidates enough for the ten places; and the people, exercising the absolute right of choice which in this contingency was allowed, re-elected Gracchus by a unanimous vote.[80] Not more than seven months of his first year’s tribunate were over, and he was secure of power for the next seventeen months at least. He now put forth all the tremendous power of the office. The senate sat powerless, and Caius Gracchus became for a time the virtual sovereign of the empire.

Immediately on re-election, Gracchus came forward with a bill for extending the Roman franchise, certainly to the citizens of all Latin colonies, probably to all free Italian communities. Here we recognise the hand of Flaccus, who had in his consulship raised this momentous question, and resumed the project on the first opportunity after his return.

A Tribune of the People

There can be no doubt that some change in this direction was necessary. The admission of the Latins and Italians to full citizenship would infuse a quantity of new blood into the decaying frame of the Roman people; and, by extending to all Italians the benefits of the agrarian law, there was really a good hope of reviving that hardy race of yeomen who were regretted by all Roman statesmen. Scipio had induced the senate for a moment to take up this cause; but after the revolt of Fregellæ, all thoughts of an extension of the franchise had been dropped. The difficulty was how to favour the Italians without provoking the Roman tribesmen. It is manifest that the project was still unpopular in the Forum, for Gracchus laboured to show that the Roman people and the Italians had one grievance in common—namely, the tyranny of the senatorial oligarchy. “The other day,” he told them, “the magistrates of Teanum had been stripped naked and scourged, because the consul’s lady complained that the public baths there had not been properly cleaned for her use. How great is the insolence of the young nobles, a single example would show. One of them was travelling through Apulia in a litter, and a countryman, meeting the bearers, asked whether they had got a dead man inside. For this word, the young lord ordered the poor man to be beaten to death with the cords of the litter.”

The chiefs of the senate perceived that the proposal to enfranchise the Italians had sapped his popularity at Rome. The consul Fannius, notwithstanding the part Gracchus had taken in his election, vehemently opposed the measure. He declared that he would again bring forward the alien act of Pennus, and expel all foreigners from Rome. The senate soon after ventured a step farther. One of the new tribunes, M. Livius Drusus by name, a young man of high birth, rich, eloquent, ambitious and determined, undertook to thwart the progress of his great colleague, and he put a veto on the law for enfranchising the Latins.

We must now return to the agrarian law. In furtherance of this law, Caius proposed to plant colonies in divers parts of Italy; Capua and Tarentum were fixed upon as the first of these new settlements: but here he showed no democratic tendencies; for no allotments were given to citizens, however poor, unless their character was respectable; and only a small number of colonists were to be sent to each place.

Drusus was not slow to take advantage of these unpopular provisions. He resolved to outbid Gracchus, and the agent of the nobility became a demagogue. He proposed to found no fewer than twelve colonies at once, each to consist of three thousand families, to be chosen without respect to character. All these colonists were to hold their allotments rent-free. Drusus openly avowed that he made these propositions in favour of the poor on the part of the senate, and declared in significant terms that he would not himself accept any part in the honour or emolument to be derived from the office of founding these colonies; whereas Gracchus had himself superintended all the public works which he had originated.

At this time, plans were on foot for extending the Italian system of colonisation to the provinces. In this very year, C. Sextius Calvinus, who had succeeded Flaccus as proconsul in Gaul, founded the town of Aquæ Sextiæ, still called Aix, in southern Gaul; four years later Narbo Martius, or Narbonne, was planted farther westward in the same country. But Gracchus himself was the first who had proposed to plant a colony beyond the Italian peninsula; and the place he fixed upon was Carthage. The plan was taken up by the senate. The new colony was to be called Junonia, and it was dexterously contrived that Gracchus himself, with Flaccus and another, should be the commissioners for distributing the lands and marking the limits of the settlement. In this way the formidable tribune and his most active supporter were obliged to quit Rome just when their presence was most needed to revive their drooping popularity.

The commissioners applied themselves to their task with so much assiduity that they returned to Rome in time for the consular elections. The ruthless Opimius was again candidate, and Gracchus exerted himself to the utmost to reorganise his party, but in vain. Popular feeling was strongly marked by the triumphant election of Opimius to the consulship, in company with Q. Fabius, son of Scipio’s elder brother, a man personally hostile to Gracchus.

The tribunician elections followed, and were equally significant of the temper of the people. Neither Gracchus nor Flaccus was re-elected. The remainder of the year indeed passed by quietly. But at the beginning of the year 121 B.C. Opimius became consul, and it was evident that danger was at hand.

[121 B.C.]

Gracchus and his friends prudently refrained from all offensive steps; but as he would give no grounds for proceeding against him, Opimius resolved to make them. News arrived from the new colony at Carthage to the effect that it had been planted on the ground cursed by Scipio; the wrath of the gods had been shown by the fact that wolves had torn down the boundary-posts. The senate met, and on the motion of Opimius ordered the tribunes to call a meeting of the tribes upon the Capitol, to rescind the law for colonising Carthage. The place was ominous, for there Ti. Gracchus had been slain.

On the appointed morning the impetuous Flaccus appeared with a large retinue armed with daggers. Gracchus followed with a considerable suite. Flaccus spoke vehemently to the tribes, while Gracchus stood aloof in the portico of the temple, in which Opimius was offering sacrifice. Here he was encountered by a retainer of the consul, who insolently pushed Gracchus aside, crying, “Make way for honest men!” Gracchus cast an angry look upon the man, who presently fell stabbed to the heart by an unknown hand. A cry of murder was raised, and the crowd fled in alarm to the Forum. Gracchus retired to his house, regretting the rash imprudence of his followers. Meantime the body of the slain man was paraded before the eyes of the terrified people. The senate armed the consuls with a decree, by which Gracchus was proclaimed a public enemy, and Opimius took station during the night in the temple of Castor, by the side of the Forum. He summoned the senate to a special sitting early next morning, and also sent to all on whom he could rely, desiring them to come armed to the Forum, and each man to bring two armed slaves. With this force he occupied the Capitol at daybreak, and prepared to execute the will of the senate.

Gracchus was irresolute; but Flaccus summoned to his house all who were ready to resist senatorial authority. Here he armed them with the Celtic weapons which he had brought home from his Gallic campaigns, and kept up their courage by deep potations of wine. Early in the morning he occupied a strong position on the Aventine, where he was joined by Gracchus, who sighed over the necessity of using force.

When the senate met, the popular leaders were summoned to attend in their places, and explain the proceedings of the previous day. They answered by proclaiming liberty to all slaves who should join them. Nothing could more show the desperate aspect which the struggle had assumed. Yet before blood flowed, Gracchus insisted on trying negotiation, and Q. Flaccus, a handsome youth of eighteen, son of the ex-tribune, was sent. But already the senate had invested Opimius with dictatorial power. The only answer the consul returned was that the leaders must appear before the senate, and explain their conduct; and when young Quintus came back with a fresh message, Opimius arrested him. He now set a price on the heads of Gracchus and Fulvius Flaccus, and ordered an immediate attack upon the Aventine. Under arms appeared the noblest men at Rome, P. Lentulus, chief of the senate, old Metellus Macedonicus, and many others. For their leader they chose not the consul, but L. Junius Brutus, the Spanish conqueror. The attack was opened under cover of a shower of arrows from a body of Cretan bowmen. Little or no resistance was offered. Flaccus fled with his eldest son. Gracchus retired into the temple of Diana, where he was hardly prevented from putting an end to his own life by two faithful friends, the knights Pomponius and Lætorius. Urged by them to flee, he threw himself on his knees, and prayed the goddess to punish the unworthy people of Rome by everlasting slavery. All three then took their way down to the Porta Trigemina, hotly pursued. Pomponius made a stand in the gateway to cover his friend’s escape across the Sublician bridge, and fell pierced with many wounds. Lætorius showed no less devotion by gallantly turning to bay upon the bridge till he knew that Gracchus was safe over, when he sprang into the river and perished. Gracchus with a single slave reached the Grove of the Furies, and here both were found dead. The faithful slave had first held the sword to his master’s heart, and then fallen upon it himself. One Septimuleius cut off the head of Gracchus, and was rewarded by the fierce Opimius with its weight in gold.[81]

Flaccus and his eldest son had found shelter in the bath-house of a friend. The consul’s myrmidons tracked them, and threatened to set fire to the house. The owner, alarmed for his property, allowed another to disclose the secret, though he did not choose to speak the word himself. They were dragged forth and slain with every mark of indignity. The handsome youth who had been arrested before the assault commenced was allowed to put himself to death.

Great numbers of the partisans of Gracchus were thrown into prison, and put to death without trial. The stream of Tiber flowed thick with corpses. The inconstant mob plundered their houses without molestation. The widows and friends of the slain were forbidden by consular edict to wear mourning. When the bloody work was done, the city was purged by a formal lustration; and the consul, by order of the senate, laid the foundations of a temple of Concord. Under the inscription placed on it by Opimius was found next morning another to this effect:

“Workers of Discord raise a shrine to Concord.”

But none dared openly to avow themselves friends of the Gracchi. The son of Caius died soon after; and except Sempronia, the widow of Scipio, none of the race remained. Cornelia retired to Misenum, where she lived for many years, not so much sorrowing for the loss of her sons as dwelling with delight on the memory of their acts. Many visited her in retirement, chiefly learned Greeks, to hear the story of the bold reformers. Calmly and loftily she told the tale, declaring that her sons had found worthy graves in the temples of the gods. In after days her statue in bronze was set up in the Forum, with the Greek sandals on her feet which had been made a reproach to her illustrious father. Beneath it were placed these words only: To Cornelia, the Mother of the Gracchi.[b]

To quote again from Beesly’s[c] acute summing-up of Caius Gracchus.

“The man who originates is always so far greater than the man who imitates, and Caius only followed where his brother led. The very dream which Caius told to the people shows that his brother’s spell was still on him, and his telling it, together with his impetuous oratory and his avowed fatalism, militates against the theory that Tiberius was swayed by impulse and sentiment, and he by calculation and reason. But no doubt he profited by experience of the past. He had learned how to bide his time, and to think generosity wasted on the murderous crew whom he had sworn to punish. Pure in life, perfectly prepared for a death to which he considered himself foredoomed, glowing with one fervent passion, he took up his brother’s cause with a double portion of his brother’s spirit, because he had thought more before action, because he had greater natural eloquence, and because being forewarned he was forearmed.

“In spite of the labours of recent historians, the legislation of Caius Gracchus is still hard to understand. Where the original authorities contradict each other, as they often do, probable conjecture is the most which can be attained, and no attempt will be made here to specify what were the measures of the first tribunate of Caius and what of the second. The general scope and tendency of his legislation is clear enough. It was to overthrow the senatorial government, and in the new government to give the chief share of the executive power to the mercantile class, and the chief share of the legislative power to Italians. These were his immediate aims. Probably he meant to keep all the strings he thus set in motion in his own hands, so as to be practically monarch of Rome. But whether he definitely conceived the idea of monarchy, and, looking beyond his own requirements, pictured to himself a successor at some future time inheriting the authority which he had established, no one can say. In such vast schemes there must have been much that was merely tentative. But had he lived and retained his influence we may be sure that the Empire would have been established a century earlier than it was.”[c]

George Long[d] says: “We may acquit the Gracchi of the Roman vice of greediness, but not of ill-directed ambition. Their object was not to enrich themselves, but to destroy the power of the Optimates by rousing against them the people, and using their votes to make a revolution. But this popular agitation increased an evil which already existed. The Gracchi used the popular vote for their purpose, as the nobles had long used it for their ends. Under the name of the public interest men on both sides sought their own.”