[17] Ptolemy Euergetes I.
[18] Ptolemy Philopator succeeded his father, Ptolemy Euergetes, B.C. 222.
[19] The sacred bull of Memphis was worshipped as a god by the Egyptians. There were certain signs by which he was recognised to be the god. At Memphis he had a splendid residence, containing extensive walks and courts for his amusement. His birthday, which was celebrated every year, was a day of rejoicing for all Egypt. His death was a season of public mourning, which lasted till another sacred bull was discovered by the priests.—Dr. Smith’s Classical Dictionary, s.v. Agis.
[20] Plutarch calls the Lives of Agis and Kleomenes a History, though he says in his Life of Alexander (c. 1) that his object is not to write Histories (ἱστορίαι) but Lives (βίοι). But the Lives of the two Spartan reforming kings may consistently enough be called a History, when contrasted with the Lives of the two Roman reforming tribunes. Plutarch’s notion of History as contrasted with Biography appears pretty plainly from the first chapter of his Life of Alexander. A complete view of the events in the Lives of Alexander and Caius Julius Cæsar would have formed, according to his notion, a History; but he does not aim at this completeness: he selects out of the events of their lives such as best show the character of the men, whether the events be of great political importance or of none at all, and this method of treating the subject he calls a Life. I believe the word Biography is a modern invention. The distinction between History and Annals, though the words have sometimes been used indiscriminately (c. 3, notes), is clearly expressed by the Roman historian Sempronius Asellio, as quoted by Aulus Gellius (v. 18).
[21] Most of Plutarch’s extant Lives run in parallels, whence they are entitled Parallel Lives. He compares a Greek with a Roman: thus he compares Alexander with Caius Julius Cæsar, and Demosthenes with Cicero. The beginning of the Life of Tiberius Gracchus is somewhat abrupt, after Plutarch’s fashion. He had no regular plan for beginning and ending his stories, and thus he avoids the sameness which is so wearisome in a Dictionary of Biography. The career of Tiberius and Caius Gracchus was the same, and accordingly Plutarch considers their lives as one; and he has found a parallel to them in two Spartan kings, who were also reformers, Agis IV. and Kleomenes III.
Agis became king of Sparta B.C. 244, and reigned only four years: his colleague in the first part of his reign was Leonidas II., and afterwards Kleombrotus. Agis attempted to restore the old institutions of Lykurgus which had fallen into disuse. Wealth had become accumulated in a few hands. He proposed to adjust the disputes between debtor and creditor by the short method of abolishing debts; and he proposed to restore the spirit of the old institutions by dividing all the lands in equal lots among the Spartan citizens, the chief class in the state; and by assigning lots also to the Periœki, who were in the relation of subjects. He carried the project for the abolition of debts, but before he could accomplish the rest of his reforms, he was thrown into prison and strangled there. His grandmother and mother, both of whom had favoured his schemes of reform, were strangled at the same time. He was about twenty-four years of age when he died. His reform was not a revolution, but an attempt to restore the old constitution.
Kleomenes III., King of Sparta, reigned from B.C. 236 to B.C. 220. In the first part of his reign, the infant son of Agis IV., and afterwards Archidamus V., the brother of Agis IV., were his colleagues. Leonidas II., who had been deposed by Agis, had returned to Sparta during the absence of Agis on a military expedition, and he was most active in bringing about the death of Agis. Leonidas compelled the widow of Agis to marry his son Kleomenes, who was instructed by his wife in the views and designs of Agis. Thus Kleomenes also became a reformer, and attempted to restore the institutions of Lykurgus. But his measures were violent. He is charged with poisoning his infant colleague, the son of the widow whom he married, and with other wrongful acts. He was defeated at the head of the Spartan army by Antigonus in the great battle of Sellasia B.C. 222, and fled to Egypt, where he was kindly received by Ptolemæus III. (Euergetes) the king. Ptolemæus IV. (Philopator) the successor of Euergetes, put Kleomenes in prison, but he contrived to get out and attempted to make a revolution in Alexandria. Failing in the attempt Kleomenes killed himself. “In this manner,” says Polybius, “fell Kleomenes; a prince whose manners were dexterous and insinuating, as his capacity in the administration of affairs was great: and who, to express his character in a word, was most admirably formed by nature both for a general and a king” (Polybius, v. c. 39; Hampton’s Translation, v. chap. 4). Plutarch in his comparison of Agis and Kleomenes with Tiberius and Caius Gracchus, concludes that “Tiberius in virtue surpassed the rest, that the youth Agis was guilty of the fewest faults, and that in doing and daring Caius was much inferior to Kleomenes;” which appears to be a correct judgment.
[22] His complete name was Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus. The Sempronia gens contained the families of the Atratini, Gracchi, and Pitiones. The Gracchi were plebeians, and the Atratini patricians: the order of the Pitiones is uncertain. The name of the Gracchi is best known from the political career of the two brothers, whose measures were the immediate cause of the civil disturbances which ended in the establishment of the Imperial power. Tiberius Gracchus, the father, was tribune of the plebs B.C. 187, consul B.C. 177 and a second time in B.C. 163: he was censor B.C. 169. Tiberius Gracchus had his first triumph in B.C. 178 for his victories over the Celtiberians in Spain while he was proprætor of Hispania Citerior, or that division of the Peninsula which was nearer to the Pyrenees (Liv. 41, c. 11). In his first consulship Gracchus had Sardinia assigned for his province, and he defeated the Sardinians in a great battle. He was continued in his province as proconsul, and he completely subdued the island (Liv. 41, c. 21), for which he had a triumph which appears to be commemorated by an extant medal (Rasche, Lexicon Rei Numariæ). Cicero numbers Tiberius among the Roman orators (Brutus, c. 20).
[23] Publius Cornelius Scipio defeated Hannibal at the battle of Zama in the territory of Carthage B.C. 202. He died B.C. 183 in his retirement at Liternum in Campania. Though Tiberius Gracchus, the father, was not on friendly terms with Scipio, yet during his tribunate B.C. 187 he prevented Scipio from being tried on certain frivolous charges brought against him by the tribunes, and owing to this interference of Gracchus, the greatest commander that Rome had yet seen, was allowed to spend the remainder of his days in quiet privacy. (Liv. 38, c. 50, &c.; Cicero, De Provinciis Consularibus, c. 8.)
[24] This story of the snakes is told by Cicero in his treatise on Divination (i. 18, ii. 29). He says that Tiberius died a few days after he had let the female snake go, and he refers as his authority to a letter of Caius Gracchus to M. Pomponius:—“I wonder,” says Cicero, “if the letting loose the female was to cause the death of Tiberius, and letting loose the male was to cause the death of Cornelia, that he let either of them go. For Caius does not say that the haruspices said any thing of what would happen if neither snake was let go.” To the objection, that the death of Gracchus did follow the letting loose of the female snake, Cicero replies that he supposes he must have died of some sudden attack, and he adds that the haruspices are not so unlucky but that their predictions sometimes happen to come true.