men, who for a certain time prowled about, watching the country, and
enduring hardships: intended to season them against fatigue, and, unless
they are much belied, to reduce the number of the helots by
assassination.--Liddell and Scott, s.v.
[16] This conversation Thirlwall conjectures to have been drawn from
some sophistical exercise. 'History of Greece,' chap. lxii.
[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 ([Greek: historiai]) but Lives ([Greek: bioi]). 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 Perioeki, 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.
[25] I do not know if this offer of King Ptolemæus is noticed by any
other writer. It is not certain whether it was Ptolemæus VI. Philometor
or his younger brother Ptolemæus VII. Euergetes II. Their two reigns
lasted 64 years from B.C. 181 to B.C. 117. Philometor died B.C. 146 and
was succeeded by Euergetes who died B.C. 117. The death of Tiberius
Gracchus the father is not ascertained. He married his wife Cornelia
after B.C. 183 and he was consul B.C. 163. His son Tiberius, who was
killed B.C. 133, was not thirty years old at the time and therefore was
born about B.C. 163. Caius, who was nine years younger, was born about
B.C. 154. It is not known whether Caius was the youngest child of
Cornelia. Ptolemæus Philometor went to Rome B.C. 163, being driven out
of his kingdom by his younger brother Euergetes, and he was well
received by the senate. His brother also made a journey to Rome in the
following year, B.C. 162. In B.C. 154 Ptolemæus Euergetes was at Rome
for the second time, and he obtained the aid of the senate against his
brother. Both the brothers may have seen Cornelia at Rome, but probably
during the lifetime of her husband. Scipio Africanus, the son-in-law of
Cornelia, was sent on an embassy to Alexandria to Euergetes B.C. 143. An
Egyptian king might wish to strengthen himself at Rome by an alliance
with the illustrious families of the Gracchi and the Scipios; but it is
impossible to determine which of these two kings was the suitor.
Philometor is spoken of as a mild and generous prince: Euergetes, who
was also called Physcon, or Big-belly, was a cruel sensualist. The
daughter of Scipio Africanus, the conqueror of Hannibal, might well
decline a marriage with him, and any Egyptian alliance would have been
viewed as a degradation to a noble Roman matron. The portrait of Physcon
is given in Rosellini's work on Egypt, from the ancient monuments, and
he is very far from looking like a winning suitor. Kaltwasser assumes
that it was Ptolemæus Philometor who made the offer to Cornelia; and he
adds that he was also called Lathyrus; but this is a mistake; Lathyrus
was the surname of Ptolemæus VIII. Soter II., the son of Physcon. He has
not examined the chronology of these two kings.
[26] This was Publius Cornelius Scipio Æmilianus Africanus Minor. He was
the son of L. Æmilius Paulus, the conqueror of Macedonia, and he was the
adopted son of P. Cornelius Scipio, the son of the conqueror of
Hannibal. According to the Roman usage in case of adoption, the son of
Æmilius Paulus took the name of his adopted father, P. Cornelius Scipio,
to which was added, according to the usage, the name of Æmilianus, which
marked the gens to which he belonged by birth. It was after the
destruction of Carthage that he acquired the additional name or title of
Africanus, like his adoptive grandfather, from whom he is usually
distinguished by the addition of the name Minor or younger. The daughter
of Cornelia, whom he married, was named Sempronia. She was ugly and bore
her husband no children, and they did not live harmoniously together.
(Appian, _Civil Wars_, i. 20.) As to the Roman names see the note on
Marius, c. 1.
[27] The Greek name for Castor and Pollux, who were the sons of Jupiter
and Leda. Pollux was a boxer, and Castor distinguished for his
management of horses and as a runner. Their statues were generally
placed side by side with their appropriate characters, to which Pluturch
alludes.
[28] Plutarch uses the Greek word Bema ([Greek: bêma]), which is
the name for the elevated stone station in the Pnyx from which the
Athenian orators addressed the public assemblies. The place from which
the Roman orators addressed the public assemblies was called the Rostra,
or the beaks, because it was ornamented with the beaks of the ships
which the Romans took from the people of Antium. (Liv. 8, c. 14.) The
Rostra were in the Forum, and in a position between the Comitium and
that part of the Forum which was appropriated to the meeting of the
Roman tribes. (See Caius Gracchus, c. 5.)
[29] The history of this Athenian demagogue is in Thucydides, ii. &c.
The play of Aristophanes called "The Knights" ([Greek: Hippês]) is
directed against him. By his turbulent oratory he acquired some
distinction at Athens during the Peloponnesian war, after the death of
Perikles. (See Plutarch, _Nikias_, c. 2, 3.)
[30] The MSS. have [Greek: delphinas], dolphins, which some critics
would change to [Greek: delphikas], tables made at Delphi or in Delphic
fashion. Plinius (_Nat. Hist._ 33, c. 11) speaks of these dolphins,
though he does not say what they were. The alteration in the text is
quite necessary. The dolphins were probably ornaments attached to some
piece of furniture. Plutarch gives the value in drachmæ, the usual Greek
silver coin, and the money of reckoning: the usual Roman money of
reckoning was the sestertius. Plinius mentions the value of these
dolphins at 5000 sestertii a pound, which would make 4 sestertii
equivalent to a drachma. The drachma is reckoned at about 9-3/4_d._ and
the sestertius at 2-1/4_d._ under the Republic.
[31] The original is literally "an instrument for practising the voice
by which they raise sounds." Perhaps a musician may be able to interpret
the passage, without explaining the instrument to be a pitch-pipe as
some have done. Cicero (_De Orat._ iii. 60) tells the same story
somewhat differently. He says that this Licinius was a lettered man
(literatus homo), and that he used to stand behind Caius Gracchus, yet
so as to be concealed, with an ivory pipe (fistula), when Gracchus was
addressing the public assemblies; his duty was to produce a suitable
note either for the purpose of rousing his master when his tone was too
low or lowering his tone when it was too vehement. (See also Dion,
_Fragmenta_, p. 39, ed. Reimarus.)
[32] An augur was one who ascertained the will of the gods by certain
signs, but more particularly the flights of birds. The institution of
augurs was coeval with the Roman state, and as the augural ceremonial
was essential to the validity of all elections, the body of augurs
possessed great political influence. The college of augurs at this time
consisted of nine members, who filled up the vacancies that occurred in
their body. A member of the college held his office for life, and the
places were objects of ambition to all the great personages in the
state. They were not appropriated to a class of priests: they were held
by persons who had no other priestly character. Cicero, for instance,
was an augur. The Roman system of placing the highest religious offices
not in the hands of a priestly class, but in the hands of persons who
had held and might still hold civil offices, perhaps possessed some
advantages. There are many valuable remarks on the Roman Auguria and
Auspicia in Rubino, _Untersuchungen über Römische Verfassung_.
[33] Appius Claudius Pulcher was a member of the Claudia gens, and
belonged to an old patrician family, which had long been opposed to all
the pretensions of the plebeian order. He was consul B.C. 143. He did
not long survive his son-in-law. Cicero (_Brutus_, 28) enumerates him
among the orators of Rome; he observes that he spoke fluently, but with
rather too much heat.
[34] The rank of Princeps Senatus was given at one time by the censors
to the oldest of those who had filled the office of censor (Liv. 27, c.
11), but after the election of Q. Fabius Maximus mentioned in the
passage of Livius, it was given to any person whom the censors thought
most fit; and it was for the same person to be reappointed at each
successive lustrum, that is, every five years. It was now merely an
honorary distinction, though it had once been a substantive office. The
title was retained under the Empire by the Emperors; and Princeps is the
title by which Tacitus designates Augustus and his successor Tiberius.
The title has come down to us through the French language in the form of
Prince.
Plutarch sometimes gives the Roman words in a Greek form, but he more
usually translates them as well as he can, which he has done in this
instance. The titles consular, censorian, prætorian, were the Roman
names for designating a man who had been consul, censor, or prætor.
[35] Livius (38, c. 57) is one of those who tell the story of Scipio
Africanus the elder giving his daughter Cornelia to Tiberius Gracchus
the father. Plutarch has done best in following Polybius, who was
intimate with the younger Africanus and had the best means of knowing
the facts.
[36] I have retained this name for Africa as it is in Plutarch. The
Greek name for the continent of Africa was Libya ([Greek: Libyê]),
which the Romans also used. In the Roman writers Africa properly denotes
the Roman province of Africa, which comprehended Carthage and a
considerable territory; but it was common enough for the Romans to
designate the whole continent by the name of Africa.
[37] Plutarch is here alluding to the campaign of Scipio in which he
destroyed Carthage B.C. 146, whence he got the name of Africanus. It was
usual for the Roman commanders to have with them a number of youths of
good family who went to learn the art of war, and were trained under the
eye of the general, to whose table and intimacy they were admitted
according to their deserts. Thus Agricola, during his early service in
Britain, was attached to the staff of Suetonius Paullinus. (Tacitus,
_Agricola_, c. 5.) Those who were admitted to the intimacy and tent of
the commander, were sometimes called Contubernales.
[38] Caius Fannius Strabo was quæstor in the consulship of Cn.
Calpurnius Piso and M. Popilius Lænas B.C. 139, and two years after he
was prætor. He served in Africa under the younger Scipio Africanus, and
in Spain under Fabius Maximus Servilianus. He was the son-in-law of
Lælius, surnamed Sapiens, or the Prudent. He wrote an historical work
which Cicero sometimes calls a History (_Brutus_, c. 26), and sometimes
Annals (_Brutus_, c. 21; _De Oratore_, ii. 67). It is unknown what
period his work comprised, except that it contained the history of the
Gracchi. Cicero does not speak highly of his style, but Sallustius seems
to commend his veracity (Lib. i. _Historiarum_).
Tiberius would be entitled to a mural crown (muralis corona), which was
the reward of the soldier who first ascended the enemy's wall. Plutarch
appears to mean that Fannius also received one. Livius (26, c. 48)
mentions an instance of two mural crowns being given by Scipio
(afterwards Africanus) at the capture of Nova Carthago (Carthagena) in
Spain.
[39] It appears that at this time the quæstors had their provinces
assigned by lot, and this was the case under the Empire. (Tacitus,
_Agricola_, c. 6.) The functions of a quæstor were of a civil kind, and
related, in the provinces, to the administration of the public money. He
was a check on the governor under whom he served when he was an honest
man: sometimes the quæstor and governor agreed to wink at the
peculations of each other.
[40] Caius Hostilius Mancinus was consul with Marcus Æmilius Lepidus
B.C. 137. Numantia, which gave the Romans so much trouble, was situated
in Old Castile on the Douro, but it is not certain what modern site
corresponds to it.
[41] The Romans used the words Iberia and Hispania indifferently to
denote the Spanish Peninsula. From the word Hispania the Spaniards have
formed the name España, the French Espagne, and the English Spain. The
river Ebro, which the Romans called Iberus, is a remnant of this old
name. The Iberi originally occupied a part of Southern Gaul (the modern
France) as far east as the Rhone, where they bordered upon the
Ligurians. They were a different people from the Celtæ, who in the time
of C. Julius Cæsar occupied one of the three great divisions of Gaul.
(_Gallic War_, i. 1.) The Celtæ, at some unknown time, crossed the
Pyrenees and mingling with the Iberi, formed the Celtiberi, a warlike
race with whom the Romans had many wars, and over whom Tiberius, the
father of Tiberius Gracchus, gained a victory. (Note, c. 1.) It is
maintained by William Humboldt in his work on the original inhabitants
of Spain (_Prüfung der Untersuchungen über die Urbewohner Hispaniens_)
that the present Basque is a remnant of the Iberian language, which he
supposes not to have been confined to Spain, but to have spread over
part of Italy, the south of France, and the islands of Sicily, Sardinia,
and Corsica. Thucydides (vi. 2) says that the Sicani, or old inhabitants
of Sicily, were Iberi who were driven from the river Sicanus in Iberia
by the Ligurians.
The name Iberia was also given by the Greeks and Romans to a part of
that mountainous region, commonly called the Caucasus, which lies
between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea. The Albani and Iberi were the
two chief nations that occupied this tract; the Albani were between the
Caspian Sea and the Iberi, who were their neighbours on the west. The
great river Cyrus (Kur) flowed through Albania into the Caspian. Iberia
was partly surrounded by the mountains of the Caucasus and it bordered
on Armenia and Colchis: the river Cyrus was the chief river (Strabo,
499, ed. Casaub.). There is no evidence that these Iberi of the Caucasus
were related to the western Iberi. The country was invaded by the Romans
under L. Lucullus and Pompeius Magnus.
[42] The allusion is to a memorable event in the Samnite war. The
consuls Spurius Postumius Albinus and Titus Veturius Calvinus B.C. 321,
with their army, were caught by the Samnites in the pass called Furculæ
Caudinæ, and they were compelled, in order to save themselves, to submit
to the ignominy of passing under the yoke. The Roman senate rejected the
terms which had been agreed on between the consuls and the officers of
the army on the one side, and the Samnites on the other. It was not a
treaty (foedus) as Livius shows, for such a treaty could not be made
without the consent of the Populus nor without the proper religious
ceremonies. (Liv. 9, c. 5.) The senate, upon the proposition of
Postumius himself, sent to the Samnites all the persons who were parties
to the agreement and offered to surrender them, but the Samnites would
not receive them and they upbraided the Romans for want of good faith.
Mancinus also supported the proposition for his own surrender to the
Numantines, and he was offered to them in due form by the officer called
the Pater Patratus, but the Numantines declined accepting him. (Cicero,
_De Officiis_, iii. 30.) The principle that a general could not formally
make a treaty, and that all treaties required the sanction of the senate
or in earlier times perhaps of the patrician body in their assembly,
appears to be well established. Those who made the treaty with a Roman
general might not know this constitutional rule, but the principle on
which the Romans acted in such cases was sound, and the censure that has
been directed against them as to their conduct in such transactions,
proceeds from ignorance of the Roman constitution and of the nature of
the power which a sovereign state delegates to its ministers. Delegated
power or authority never authorises the persons to whom it is delegated
to do an act which is inconsistent with the constitution or fundamental
principles on which the sovereign power is based.
Mancinus returned to Rome and ventured to appear in the senate, but a
question was raised as to his right to be there, for it was argued that
a man who had been so surrendered ceased to be a citizen and could not
recover his civic rights by the fiction of postliminium, as a man who
had escaped from the enemy could. (Cicero, _De Oratore_, 40.) But the
subtlety of the Romans found a solution of the difficulty in the case of
Mancinus: there can be no surrender, if there is nobody to receive the
surrender; therefore Mancinus was not surrendered; therefore he was
capable of recovering his civil rights. (Cicero, _Topica_ 1.)