[49] It does not seem certain what Postumius is intended. Sp. Postumius Albinus Magnus was consul B.C 148, and is supposed by Meyer (Orat. Rom. Fragmenta, 197) to be the orator alluded to by Cicero (Brutus, 25). But this Postumius was too old to be a rival of Gracchus. Another of the same name was consul B.C. 110, and conducted the war against Jugurtha unsuccessfully; but he was perhaps too young to be a rival of Gracchus. (Cicero, Brutus, 34.)
[50] This was P. Licinius Crassus Mucianus Dives, the son of P. Mucius Scævola, and the adopted son of P. Licinius Crassus Dives, as appears from Cicero (Academ. 2, c. 5), who mentions him with his brother P. Scævola as one of the advisers of Tiberius Gracchus in his legislation. Crassus was consul with L. Valerius Flaccus B.C. 131. He was a soldier, a lawyer, and an orator. He lost his life in the war against Aristonikus in the Roman province of Asia B.C. 131. It is remarked that he was the first pontifex maximus who went beyond the limits of Italy, for he was consul and pontifex maximus when he went to carry on the war against Aristonikus. (Livius, Epitome, 59.) The pontifex maximus, as the head of religion, had important duties which required his presence at Rome.
[51] The illustrious family of the Scævolæ produced many orators and jurists. This Scævola was P. Mucius Scævola, the brother of P. Licinius Crassus Mucianus. He was consul B.C. 133, the year in which Tiberius Gracchus attempted his reform. He attained the dignity of pontifex maximus in B.C. 131 on his brother’s death. Scævola was probably a timid man. Cicero states that his brother openly favoured the measures of Tiberius; and Scævola was suspected of doing so. After the death of Tiberius he approved of the conduct of Scipio Nasica, who was the active mover in this affair, and assisted in drawing up several decrees of the Senate in justification of the measure and even in commendation of it. (Cicero Pro Domo, c. 34; Pro Plancio, 36.) He was a great orator, but his chief merit was as a jurist. He was the father of a son still more distinguished as a jurist, Quintus Mucius Scævola, who also became pontifex maximus, and was one of the teachers of Cicero. He is considered to be one of those who laid the foundations of Roman law and formed it into a science (Dig. 1, tit. 2, s. 2). Quintus Mucius Scævola, commonly called the augur, also a distinguished jurist, was a cousin of P. Mucius Scævola, the pontifex, and a teacher of Cicero before Cicero became a hearer of the pontifex.
[52] The eloquence of Tiberius Gracchus is commemorated by Cicero (Brutus, c. 27), who had read his orations. He describes them as not sufficiently ornate in expression, but as acute and full of judgment. The specimens of the orations of Tiberius (c. 9. 15) and those in Appian (Civil Wars, 9. 15) fully bear out the opinion of Cicero as to his acuteness. Some German writers assert that these speeches in Plutarch are either fabricated by him or taken from other writers; but assertions like these, which are not founded on evidence, are good for nothing. Plutarch gives the speeches as genuine: at least he believes them to be so, and therefore he did not fabricate them. And it is not likely that any body else did. These two fragments (c. 9. 15) bear no resemblance to the style of most writers who have fabricated speeches. They are in a genuine Roman style. If any man could fabricate them, it was Livius, and Plutarch may have taken them from him.
[53] The same expression occurs in Horace (1 Carm. 1), which there also applies to the Romans, and not to the gods, as some suppose.
[54] Marcus Octavius, who was one of the tribuni plebis B.C. 133, was a descendant of Cneius Octavius, quæstor B.C. 230. Caius Octavius, better known as Caius Julius Cæsar Octavianus and as the Emperor Augustus, was a descendant of Caius the second son of Cneius. Cicero, whose opinion about the Gracchi changed with the changed circumstances of his own life, commends the opposition of Marcus Octavius to the measures of Gracchus. (Brutus, c. 25.) He also says that Octavius was a good speaker.
The institution of the tribuni plebis is one of the most important events in the history of Rome, and the struggle between the plebeians headed by their tribunes, and the nobility, is the development of the constitutional history of Rome. Though there were tribunes in the kingly period, the establishment of the tribuni plebis as the guardians of the plebs is properly referred to the year B.C. 494, when the plebs seceded to the Mons Sacer or the Sacred Mount. On this occasion the patricians consented to the election of two tribunes from the plebs. (Livius, 2, c. 33: compare Livius, 2, 56. 58.) The number was afterwards increased to ten, and this number continued unaltered. Only a plebeian could be elected tribune. The persons of the tribunes were declared to be sacred (sacrosancti). Their powers were originally limited, as above stated, to the protection of the rights of the plebs and of the individuals of the plebeian body against the oppression of the patrician magistrates. It is not possible within the compass of a note to trace the history of the gradual increase of the tribunitian power (tribunitia potestas): such a subject is a large chapter in the history of Rome. Incidental notices often appear in Plutarch’s Lives, which will help a reader to form a general notion of the nature of the magistracy, and the effect which it had on the development of the Roman constitution. The article Tribuni in Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities gives an outline of the functions of the tribuni plebis.
Very soon after the institution of the tribunate, the nobles learned the art of destroying the power of the college of tribunes by gaining over one or more of the members; for, as Plutarch states, the opposition (intercessio) of a single tribune rendered the rest of his colleagues powerless.
[55] As this is the first time that I have used this word, it requires explanation. The origin of the Roman state is a matter involved in great obscurity; but its history after the expulsion of the kings B.C. 509 is the history of a struggle between a class of nobles, an aristocracy, and the people. The old nobility of Rome were the patricians, whom Livius calls indifferently patres (father) and patricii. In his early History patres and plebs are opposed to one another, as we should now oppose the terms nobles or aristocracy, and commonalty or people; not that nobles and aristocracy are among us exactly equivalent, but in the history of Rome there is no distinction between them. Livius frequently uses the term patres and plebs as comprehending all the Roman citizens (ii. 33). The word populus was originally and properly not the people in our sense; it signified the superior and privileged class and was equivalent to patricians. The plebs were originally not a part of the populus. In later times the word populus was often used loosely to express generally the Roman people, and the style and title of the Roman state was Senatus Populusque Romanus—The Senate and the Roman populus, which term populus in the later republic certainly included the plebs, though the plebs is still spoken of as a class. As the plebeians gradually obtained access to the higher honours of the state and to the consulship by a law of Licinius Stolo B.C. 366, a new class of nobles was formed out of those persons who had enjoyed those honours and out of their descendants. This class was called nobiles by the Romans; the word nobilitas denoted the rank or title of the class, but it was also used like our word nobility to express the body of nobiles. Livius uses this term even in the earlier books of his History, but perhaps not with strict correctness, for in some cases at least he makes the term nobility equivalent to the patricians. He wrote in the reign of Augustus, and he has not always applied his terms in the earlier periods with perfect accuracy. Still we may trace the meaning of political terms in the Roman writers with great clearness, for no nation ever stuck more closely to old forms and expressions, and there is a wonderful precision in the use of political terms by Roman writers of all ages and of all classes. The name patricians still existed after the term nobilis was introduced: a noble might be either a patrician or a plebeian, but the distinction was well understood between an old patrician family and a plebeian family, however distinguished the plebeian family might become. Under the Emperors it was not uncommon for them to promote a man to the rank of patrician for eminent services, which under the monarchy was equivalent to the conferring of a title of dignity in modern times, and nothing more. (Tacit. Ann. xi. 25.)
In Cicero we find the aristocratical order often spoken of as the optimates (the class of the best), a term which corresponds to the Greek aristi (ἄριστοι), whence we have the word aristocracy, which, however, the early Greek writers, at least, only used to express a form of government and not a class of persons. Cicero on one occasion (Pro P. Sestio, c. 45) attempts to give to the word optimates a much wider signification; to make it comprehend all good and honest people: but this is a mere piece of rhetoric. When a poor plebeian heard the optimates spoken of, he never imagined that it was intended to place him among them, were he as honest as the best man among the optimates. Cicero also says the populares were those who merely spoke and acted to please the multitude; which shows that populus must now have changed its meaning: the optimates were those who wished to act so as to get the approbation of all honest men.