[64.6] construed here like dōnec, [p. 39, n. 9].
[64.7] Cf. [p. 28, n. 3].
[64.8] sed . . . māluērunt: this whole account of the Gracchi was manifestly written by one who sympathized with the senatorial or aristocratic party. Modern scholars are divided in their interpretations of the motives of the Gracchi.
[64.9] The reference is to the ager pūblicus, or land gained in conquest. It belonged in theory to the state, but the greater part of it had fallen into the hands of wealthy capitalists, who, though possessing no legal title to the land, yet regarded it as their own, and resented any attempt to interfere with their occupancy. Meanwhile, the number of small landholders was constantly decreasing. These circumstances tended to drive numbers of poor people to the cities, especially Rome. The universal employment of slave labor aggravated the trouble by shutting the poor out from honest labor. Tiberius attempted to remedy these evils by limiting the number of acres of the public land which might be held by any individual and by distributing the lands thus redeemed among the poorer classes.
[64.10] These colonies were intended to aid in relieving the distress at Rome by removing part of the population and supplying such persons with lands.
[64.11] It was a general rule that no magistrate should hold the same office for two successive terms. Thus no man could be reëlected consul until ten years after the expiration of the first term. When Tiberius, at the end of his year as tribune, presented himself for reëlection, the aristocrats appealed to this rule. Gracchus might have replied that the rule had often been set aside under special circumstances. Still, on the whole, his conduct seems to have been unconstitutional.
[65.1] This statement is probably wholly false. As the champions of the poor against the rich, the Gracchi were hated by the aristocrats, and received no favors at the hands of Roman historians.
[65.2] Hōc . . . pōsceret: ‘The nobles interpreted this to mean that he was demanding a kingly crown.’ pōsceret is subjunctive as giving in indirect discourse the thought of the nobles; cf. [p. 3, n. 6].
[65.3] ‘although.’
[65.4] See Vocab., [equestris] and [eques].