Plutarch’s perception of the early periods of Roman history was perhaps not strictly exact; but he comprehended very clearly the state of the parties in the age of the Gracchi. On the one side were the nobles and the rich, some of whom were noble and some were not; on the other side were the people, the mass, the poor. The struggle was now between rich and poor, and the rich often became the leaders of the poor for the purpose of political distinction and influence, and hence the name populares. Probably few states have ever presented the spectacle of the striking contrast between wealth and poverty which the Roman state exhibited from the time of the Gracchi; a class of rich, rich by hereditary wealth and by all the modes of acquiring wealth which the possession of office and the farming of the public revenues offered to them; a class of poor who were born poor, who had little industry and few means of exercising it. To this we must add, that though there were many cultivators in the country who might enjoy a moderate subsistence from their small estates, there was a city crowded with poor who had votes, and by their union and numbers mainly determined the elections and the acceptance or rejection of legislative measures. Rome, in fact, was the centre of all political agitation, and the result of a revolution in the city generally determined the dispute between two rival factions. We have still to take into the account a very numerous class of slaves. It is probable that in the earlier periods of Roman history the slaves were comparatively few; in the later republic they became very numerous. They formed a large part of the wealth of the rich, and they were always a dangerous body to the state. The effect of employing slaves generally in agriculture and other occupations was, as it always must be, unfavourable to industry among free men. Slaves, also, were often manumitted, and though the son of a manumitted slave was in all respects on the same footing as a complete Roman citizen, if his father was made such by the act of manumission, yet persons of this condition, and especially those who had been liberated from slavery, were looked upon as a somewhat inferior class. Their connection with the powerful families to which they had belonged, also gave such families great influence in all elections; and as we see in various instances, the class of libertini, manumitted slaves, was viewed as a dangerous body in the state. The equites at Rome can scarcely be called a middle class: they were generally rich and the farmers of the revenues, under the name of publicani. They were often opposed to the senate, but it was an opposition of pure interest, and their wealth made them rather the partisans of the aristocratical than of the popular body. Such were the political elements with which Tiberius Gracchus had to deal, when he attempted a reform which perhaps the times did not render practicable, and for which he certainly did not possess the courage or the judgment or the inflexible resolution which were necessary to secure success. The word in Plutarch which I have here translated nobles is δυνατοί, the powerful. In other places he calls them the rich (πλούσιοι), the possessors [of public land] (κτηματικοί), the aristocratical body (ἀριστοκρατικοί); and perhaps other terms. He calls the plebs, or people as opposed to this class, by various names, of which δῆμος is the most common: he also calls them the multitude (πλῆθος), the many (πολλοί), and other like names.
It is impossible to attain perfect precision in the use of political terms in a translation of Plutarch; and in order to be critically exact, it would be necessary to load these notes continually with remarks. But this critical exactness is not required here: the opposition of the two orders in the state is intelligible to everybody. The contests in Rome from the time of the Gracchi to the establishment of the monarchy under Augustus, were contests in which the rich and the powerful were constantly struggling among themselves for political supremacy; there was an acknowledged aristocratical and an acknowledged popular party. But the leaders of both parties, with perhaps some few exceptions, were mainly bent on personal aggrandisement. The aristocratical class had a clearer object than the leaders of the popular party: they wished to maintain the power of their order and that of the senate, which was the administering body. The leaders of the popular party could have no clear object in view except the destruction of the power of the senate: the notion of giving the people more power than they possessed would have been an absurdity. Accordingly the depression of the aristocratical body had for a necessary consequence the elevation of an individual to power, as in the case of Cæsar the dictator. Sulla, it is true, was an aristocrat, and he destroyed so far as he could the popular party; but he made himself dictator, and to the last day of his life he ruled all parties with a rod of iron.
The existence of a numerous and needy class who participated in political power without having any property which should be a guarantee for their honest use of it, was the stuff out of which grew the revolutions of Rome. There was a crowded city population, clamorous, for cheap bread, for grants of land, for public shows and amusements, averse to labour, constantly called into political activity by the annual elections, always ready to sell their votes to the best bidders; and a class always ready to use this rabble as a tool for their political and personal aggrandisement. Machiavelli observes (Istor. Fiorent. iii.) that the natural enmity which exists between the men of the popular party and the nobles (gli uomini Populari e i Nobili), proceeds from the wish of the nobles to command and of the others not to obey, and that these are the causes of all the evils that appear in states. He adds (iv.) that states, and especially those that are not well constituted, which are administered under the name of republics, often change their government and condition, but the fluctuation is not between liberty and servitude, as many suppose, but between servitude and licence. It is only the name of liberty which is in the mouths of the ministers of licence who are the popular leaders, and the ministers of servitude who are the nobles; both of them wish to be subject neither to the laws nor to men. These remarks, which are peculiarly applicable to Florence and the so-called republics of Italy of that time, apply equally to the Roman state. There are governments, however, to which the name republic can be properly applied, and that of Great Britain is one, which owing to the possession of certain elements have a more stable character. Still the general character of a popular and of an aristocratical party is correctly sketched by Machiavelli.
[56] Plutarch, who is fond of allusions to the Greek poets, here alludes to a passage in the Bacchæ of Euripides, l. 387:
“for e’en in Bacchus’ orgies
She who is chaste will never be corrupted.”
See Bacchæ, ed. Elmsley, 1. 317, 834, and the notes.
[57] The temple of Saturn was now used, among other purposes, as the treasury of the state, the Ærarium.
[58] A dolo is described by Hesychius, v. Δόλωνες, in one sense, as a dagger contained in a wooden case, a kind of sword-stick. (See Facciolati, Lexicon.) Kaltwasser describes it as a walking-stick containing a dagger, and translates the passage, “he provided himself with a robbers’ dagger, without making any secret of it.” I think that he wore it concealed, but made no secret of it, which agrees better with the whole context; and Amyot has translated it so.
[59] The word in Plutarch is water jars, hydriai (ὑδρίαι), the Roman sitellæ, urnæ or orcæ. The sitellæ were a kind of jar with a narrow neck: they were filled with water so that the wooden lots (sortes) would float at the top, and only one could be there at a time. These lots were used for the purpose of determining in what order the tribes or centuries should vote, for the names of the several tribes or centuries were on the several lots. The vessel into which the voters put their votes (tabellæ), when the order of voting had been fixed for the tribes and centuries, was called cista; and it was a basket of wicker-work or something of the kind, of a cylindrical shape. If Plutarch has used the proper word here, the preliminary proceedings were disturbed by the rich seizing or throwing down the vessels, out of which were to be drawn the lots for determining in what order the tribes should vote. The business had not yet got so far as the voting, which consisted in the voters depositing in a cista one of the tablets (tabellæ), which were distributed among them for this purpose, and which were marked with an appropriate letter to express acceptance of a measure or rejection of it. There is a Roman denarius which represents a man going to put a tabella into a cista: the tabella is marked A, which means Absolvo, I acquit. The letter C (Condemno, I condemn) was marked on the tabella of condemnation. (Eckhel, Doctr. Num. Vet. V. 166.) The coin was struck to commemorate the carrying of a law by L. Cassius Longinus B.C. 137, by which the voting in criminal trials (judicia populi) except for perduellio (treason) should be by ballot and not as before by word of mouth.