[96] Cicero, in Brutus, c. 33, and in other passages, bears testimony to the powerful eloquence of Caius Gracchus. Up to the time of Cicero, the orations of Gracchus were the models of oratory which all Romans studied. Cicero says that his speeches did not receive the finishing touch; he left behind him many things which were well begun, but not perfected. The practice of revising speeches for the purpose of publication was common among the Athenian and Roman orators. In manly and vigorous oratory we may doubt if Caius Gracchus ever had his equal among the Romans; and if not among the Romans, where shall we look for his equal?
[97] I have here allowed a word to stand by something of an oversight, to which however there is no objection. Plutarch uses the word “law;” but the Roman word is “Rogatio,” which means a Bill, a proposed Law, so called because the form of passing a law was to ask (rogare) the assembly if they would have it. The form of voting was to reject (antiquare) by the formula A., or to confirm (jubere) by the formula U.R. (Uti Rogas), “as you propose,” which were marked on the tabellæ or voting-tablets. (Cicero, Ad Attic. i. 14.)
To Promulgate a law, or more properly a Rogation, signified among the Romans, to make public (for promulgare is only another form of Provulgare) a proposed law; to give notice of a proposed measure and its contents. To promulgate a law in modern times means to make known a law which is already a law; but the expression is not much used.
[98] P. Popillius Lænas was also consul with P. Rupilius B.C. 132. He returned to Rome after the death of Caius Gracchus.
[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.