XIX. Cornelia is said to have borne her misfortunes with a noble and elevated spirit, and to have said of the sacred ground on which her sons were murdered, that they had a tomb worthy of them. She resided in the neighbourhood of Misenum, without making any change in her usual mode of life. She had many friends, and her hospitable table was always crowded with guests; Greeks and learned men were constantly about her, and kings sent and received presents from her. To all her visitors and friends she was a most agreeable companion: she would tell them of the life and habits of her father Africanus, and, what is most surprising, would speak of her sons without showing sorrow or shedding a tear, relating their sufferings and their deeds to her inquiring friends as if she was speaking of the men of olden time. This made some think that her understanding had been impaired by old age or the greatness of her sorrows, and that she was dull to all sense of her misfortunes, while in fact such people themselves were too dull to see what a support it is against grief to have a noble nature, and to be of honourable lineage and honourably bred; and that though fortune has often the advantage over virtue in its attempts to guard against evils, yet she cannot take away from virtue the power of enduring them with fortitude.[123]
COMPARISON OF TIBERIUS AND CAIUS GRACCHUS WITH AGIS AND KLEOMENES.
I. Now that we have completed the narrative of these men’s lives, it remains for us to compare them with one another. As for the Gracchi, not even their bitterest enemies could deny that they were the most virtuous of all the Romans, or that they were excellently well nurtured and educated; while Agis and Kleomenes appear to have excelled them in strength of mind, because they both, after having been brought up in the same fashion by which their elders had been corrupted, became the restorers of temperance and simplicity of life. Furthermore, the Gracchi, who lived at a period when Rome was at the height of its greatness and renown, felt ashamed to fall short of the glorious achievements of their forefathers; while the virtuous impulses of the others were not checked by their fathers having pursued the opposite course of policy, or by the miserable and distracted condition of their country. The greatest proof of the unselfishness and indifference to money of the Gracchi is that they filled various offices in the state, and yet kept their hands clean from dishonest gains; while it would be an insult to Agis to praise him for not having taken other men’s money, as he gave up to his countrymen his own private property, which alone was worth six hundred talents. If then he thought it discreditable for him to be richer than any of his countrymen, even though his riches were lawfully acquired, what must have been his abhorrence of those who obtain money wrongfully.
II. There was also a great difference in the boldness and extent of their schemes of reform. The Gracchi were chiefly engaged in the construction of roads and the founding of cities, and Tiberius’s most important measure of reform was the division of the public lands among the people, while the best act of his brother Caius was the establishment of a mixed tribunal by adding to the three hundred Senators three hundred Roman Knights. The revolution effected by Agis and Kleomenes was of quite a different kind. They thought, in Plato’s words, that to proceed by slow degrees was merely cutting off the heads of the hydra,[124] and therefore they by one comprehensive measure swept away all abuses at once: although it would be nearer the truth to say that they swept all abuses out of the state by restoring to it its original constitution. It may also be observed that the reforms of the Gracchi were opposed by some of the most powerful men in Rome, whereas the legislation which was begun by Agis, and completed by Kleomenes, followed a famous and ancient precedent, the rhetras on sobriety and equality which had been communicated to their ancestors by Lykurgus with the sanction of the Pythian Apollo. It is also most important to notice that the reforms of the Gracchi made Rome no greater than she was before, while the acts of Kleomenes enabled him in a short time to make Sparta mistress of the whole of Peloponnesus, and to engage in a contest with the most powerful man of his time, with the object of ridding Greece from Illyrian and Gaulish mercenary troops, and of renewing its ancient glories under the rule of the Herakleidæ.
III. I think too that the deaths of these men show a certain difference in their courage. The Gracchi fought with their countrymen, and were slain by them while flying, while of the other two, Agis may almost be said to have died voluntarily, because he would not put a citizen to death, while Kleomenes, when insulted and ill-treated, fiercely attempted to avenge himself, and as circumstances prevented his succeeding, bravely killed himself. It may be said on the other side that Agis never distinguished himself in the field, and we may set against the many brilliant victories of Kleomenes the scaling of the wall of Carthage by Tiberius Gracchus, no slight achievement, and the peace which he made with the Numantines, by which he saved the lives of twenty thousand Roman soldiers, who could not otherwise have hoped to survive; while Caius, in several campaigns both in Italy and Sardinia, showed great military skill; so that they both might have rivalled the fame of the greatest generals of Rome, had they not been cut off so soon.
IV. In political matters Agis appears to have shown weakness, as he allowed Agesilaus to cheat the citizens out of their promised redistribution of lands, and in a feeble and vacillating manner announced his intention and then abandoned it. The cause of his irresolution was his extreme youth; while Kleomenes on the other hand effected his revolution with too great promptitude and daring, putting the Ephors to death without a trial, when it would have been easy for him to have won them over to his side, and banishing many of the citizens. It is not the part either of a wise physician or of a good politician to use the knife except in the last extremity, but it shows a want of skill in both, and in the latter case it is unjust as well as cruel. Of the Gracchi, neither would begin a civil war, and Caius is said not even to have defended himself when struck, but though forward enough in battle he was loth to fight in a party quarrel; for he appeared in public unarmed, and retired when fighting began, and evidently took more pains not to do any harm than not to suffer any. For this reason we must regard the flight of both the Gracchi as a proof, not of cowardice, but of caution; for they must either have retreated when attacked or have retaliated upon their opponents.
V. The heaviest charge that can be brought against Tiberius is that he deposed his colleague from the tribuneship, and afterwards sought a second tribuneship for himself. As for the murder of Antyllius, Caius Gracchus was most falsely and unjustly accused of it, for he did not wish him to die, and was grieved at his death. Again Kleomenes, not to speak of his massacre of the Ephors, set all the slaves at liberty, and practically made himself despot of the kingdom, although for form’s sake he associated his brother with him, who was of the same family. And when Archidamus, who was the next heir to the throne of the other royal house, was persuaded by him to return from Messene to Sparta, as Kleomenes did not avenge his death, he caused men to suspect that he himself had some share in it. Yet Lykurgus, whom he affected to imitate, abdicated the throne of his own free will in favour of his nephew Charilaus, and fearing that if the child died by any mischance he might be thought guilty of having caused its death, he travelled abroad for a long time and did not return until Charilaus had begotten a son to succeed him. However, no Greek can bear comparison with Lykurgus; yet we have proved that Kleomenes effected greater reforms, and showed less respect to the laws than any of the others. Both the Greeks have been blamed for having from the very outset aimed at being nothing more than warlike despots; while the worst enemies of the Romans only charge them with an immoderate ambition, and admit that they became so excited by the contest with their political opponents that the natural heat of their temper drove them in spite of themselves like a baleful gust of wind to advocate extreme measures. What indeed can be more just or honourable than the objects with which they started; for their troubles were brought upon them by the opposition which the rich offered to their laws, so that the one was forced to fight to save his own life, while the other endeavoured to avenge his brother, who was slain without law or justice? From what has been said the reader can himself form an opinion about their respective merits, but if I must say what I think of each, I should give the highest place in respect of virtue to Tiberius Gracchus; I think that the young Agis committed the fewest crimes; while in daring and action Caius fell far short of Kleomenes.