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.
These remarks are taken from an essay by Wunder (_Variæ Lectiones &c. ex
Codice Erfurtensi_), in which he has established the meaning of sitella
and cista respectively to be that which Manutius long ago maintained. He
observes that in the Roman comitia one sitella would be sufficient, as
it was only used for receiving the names of the tribes or centuries,
which were put in for the purpose of determining by drawing them out, in
what order the tribes or centuries should vote. And accordingly he says
that when comitia are spoken of, we never find urns or sitellæ spoken of
in the plural number. But he has not mentioned the passage of Plutarch.
It may be difficult to determine if Plutarch considered that the
preliminary lot-drawing had been gone through, and the people were
voting. If he considered the voting to be going on, he has used the
wrong word. With this explanation, I leave the word "voting-urns" in the
text, which is not the correct Roman word but may be what Plutarch
meant. It seems as if he thought that the voting had commenced.
[60] Plutarch writes it Mallius, for the Greeks never place _n_ before
_l_.
[61] From this it appears that the vote of each tribe counted as one,
and the vote of the tribe was determined by the majority of voters in
each tribe. It seems to follow that each tribe had a cista to receive
its votes. It is said, the practice was to count the votes when all was
over; but they must have been counted as each tribe voted, according to
this story. The narrative of Appian is the same (_Civil Wars_, i. 12).
[62] The names of various Roman officers and functionaries were derived
from their number, as duumviri (two men), triumviri (three men),
decemviri, and so on. Some description was added to the name to denote
their functions. There were triumviri agro dando or dividendo, triumviri
for the division of public land; duumviri juri dicundo, for
administering justice, and so forth.
[63] Appian (_Civil Wars_, i. 13) calls him Quintus Mummius.
[64] Plutarch and other Greek writers translate the Roman word, cliens,
by Pélates ([Greek: pelatês]). (See Marius, c. 5, notes.)
[65] Plutarch generally uses Attic coins. Nine oboli were a drachma and
a half, or about six sestertii. (See c. 2, note.)
[66] See c. 21.
[67] This Attalus III., the last king of Pergamum, left his kingdom to
the Romans on his death B.C. 133, the year of the tribunate of Gracchus.
His kingdom comprised the best part of that tract out of which the
Romans formed the province of Asia. Pergamum was the name of the
capital. This rich bequest was disputed by Aristonikus. (See c. 20.)
[68] Perhaps Q. Pompeius Rufus who was consul B.C. 141, and disgraced
himself by a treaty with the Numantines and his subsequent behaviour
about it. (Cicero, _De Officiis_, iii. 30; _De Finibus_, ii. 17; Appian,
_Iberica_, c. 79.)
[69] Quintus Cæcilius Metellus Macedonicus, who was consul B.C. 143.
Kaltwasser says, that Plutarch without doubt means Balearicus, the son
of Metellus Macedonicus, which son was consul B.C. 123. Without doubt he
means the father, who is mentioned by Cicero as an opponent of Tiberius
Gracchus, and he states that an oration of his against Gracchus was
preserved in the Annals of Fannius. (_Brutus_, 21.)
[70] Titus Annius Luscus was consul with Q. Fulvius Nobilior B.C. 153.
(Cicero, _Brutus_, c. 20; Livius, _Epitome_, 58.)
[71] It is clear that Plutarch believed this to be a genuine speech of
Tiberius. It is not an argument that he could have made, nor is it
likely that it is a fabrication of any professed speech-writer. It is
true that there were many speeches extant among the Romans, which,
though mere rhetorical essays, were attributed to persons of note and
passed off as genuine speeches. But this is either not one of them, or
it has been managed with consummate art. The defence of Tiberius is a
blot on his character. He could not avoid knowing that his arguments
were unsound. To abdicate, which means to resign a Roman magistracy, was
a different thing from being deprived of it. The Tribunes were elected
at the Comitia Tributa, but they derived their powers by uninterrupted
succession from the consecrated act (Lex Sacrata) done on the Holy Mount
and confirmed after the overthrow of the Decemviral power. (Livius, 2,
c. 33; 3, c. 55.) On this subject, see Bubino, _Untersuchungen über Röm.
Verfassung_, p. 32.
[72] See Caius Gracchus, c. 5. Appian does not mention these measures of
Tiberius.
[73] The elections of Tribunes in the time of Cicero were on the 17th of
July (_Ad Attic._ i. 1). According to Dionysius the first Tribunes
entered on their office on the 10th of December. Kaltwasser suggests
that as it was now the summer season, the country people were busy in
their fields and could not come to the election, which thus would be in
the hands of the townspeople. If Tiberius was killed in July and entered
on his office in the previous December, this will agree with what Cicero
says of him, "he reigned a few months." (_Lælius_, c. 12.)
[74] A cage, the Roman cavea. This was one of the modes of ascertaining
the will of the gods. It was a firm belief among the nations of
antiquity that the gods did by certain signs and tokens give men the
opportunity of knowing their will. The determination of these signs was
reduced to a system, which it was the duty of certain persons, augurs
and others, to learn and to transmit. The careful reader will find many
other notices of this matter in Plutarch and some in these notes. (See
Sulla, c. 6, notes.)
P. Claudius Pulcher, who was consul B.C. 249, and in the command of the
Roman fleet off Sicily, despised the omens. The fowls would not eat,
which portended that his projected attack on the Carthaginians would be
unfavourable; but Claudius said that if they would not eat, they should
drink, and he pitched the sacred fowls into the sea. He lost most of his
ships in the engagement that followed. (Cicero, _De Natura Deorum_, ii.
3.) The "birds" of Plutarch are "fowls," "pulli."
[75] His name was Fulvius Flaccus; the name of Flaccus belongs to the
Fulvii. As he was a friend of Tiberius, it is probable that a Marcus
Fulvius Flaccus is meant, who is mentioned in the Life of Caius.
[76] This was P. Mucius Scævola. His colleague L. Calpurnius Piso was
conducting the war in Sicily against the slaves who had risen. The
Senate, according to Appian (_Civil Wars_, i. 16), was assembled in the
Temple of Fides on the Capitol. The circumstances of the death of
Tiberius are told by Appian (_Civil Wars_, i. 15. 16), who states that
there was a fight between the partisans of Tiberius and the other party
before the Senate met.
[77] To make Plutarch consistent, we must suppose that Caius had
returned to Rome. (See c. 13.)
[78] I can find nothing more about him. This strange punishment was the
punishment for parricide.
[79] Cicero (_Lælius_, c. 11) and Valerius Maximus (4, c. 7) make Lælius
ask these questions.
[80] Aristonikus was an illegitimate son of Eumenes II. King of
Pergamum. He disputed the will of Attalus III. and seized the kingdom.
Publius Licinius Crassus Mucianus Dives, who was sent against him B.C.
131, was unsuccessful, and lost his life; but Aristonikus was defeated
by the consul M. Perperna B.C. 130, and taken to Rome, where he was
strangled in prison.
[81] This is P. Licinius Crassus Mucianus Dives, c. 9. 20.
[82] This does not appear in the extant Lives which bear the name of
Nepos; but what we have under his name is a spurious work of little
value except the Life of Atticus.
[83] D. Junius Brutus Gallæcus was consul with P. Cornelius Scipio
Nasica Serapio B.C. 138. He completely subdued the Gallæci (people of
Galicia) and the Lusitani who occupied a part of modern Portugal, and
carried the Roman arms to the western extremity of the Spanish
peninsula.
[84] He was the colleague of Brutus B.C. 138, as just stated, and
Pontifex Maximus in the year of the death of Tiberius. He must have died
soon after going to Asia; for Publius Licinius Crassus Mucianus Dives
was Pontifex Maximus B.C. 131 (c. 9); but the remark in the Epitome of
Livius (lib. 59) that he was the first Pontifex Maximus who went beyond
the limits of Italy is not true. The Pontifex Maximus, who was the chief
of the college of Pontifices, was chosen for life. He could not be
deprived of his office, nor, it seems, could he give it up. Augustus
allowed his old rival Lepidus to keep his dignity of Pontifex Maximus
till his death. (Dion Cassius, 49, c. 15.)
[85] The line is from Homer's _Odyssey_, i. 47.
[86] This is lost, and also Plutarch's Life of Scipio Africanus Major.
[87] The word by which Plutarch has translated Forum is Agora ([Greek:
agora]). A Forum was an open place or area, and is often generally used
for Public Place, such as almost every town has. _The_ Forum at Rome was
the Forum Romanum, which was situated between the Palatine and
Capitoline Hills; it was surrounded by buildings and was the chief place
for the administration of justice and for the public assemblies. To keep
away from the Forum here means to take no share in public affairs.
Sometimes, Forensic (forensis), a term comprehending all that relates to
public business and the proceedings in the courts, is opposed to
Domestic (domesticus), private, as we see in Cicero (_Ad Attic._ i. 5,
&c.).
[88] As thirty-one was the age at which according to a law (Lex Annalis
Villia) a man could become Quæstor, Tiberius, who was Quæstor before he
was tribune, must have been older than Plutarch says that he was; unless
he was elected Quæstor before the legal age.
[89] The island of Sardinia was made a Roman province B.C. 235.
[90] Lucius Aurelius Orestes and M. Æmilius Lepidus were consuls B.C.
126.
[91] This dream is mentioned by Cicero, _De Divinatione_, i. 26. C.
Gracchus told his dream to many persons, before he was elected tribune.
It happened while he was a candidate for the quæstorship.
[92] Micipsa, King of Numidia, was the son of Massinissa, who was the
firm ally of the Romans in their contest with the Carthaginians in the
Second Punic War. At the close of this war, his territory was greatly
enlarged by the addition of the dominions of Syphax and a large part of
the Carthaginian territory. He was succeeded by Micipsa, who died B.C.
118. The Carthaginian territory which subsequently formed a large part
of the Roman province of Africa was a rich corn country, and one of the
granaries of Rome under the latter Republic and the Empire.
[93] Gracchus made his defence before the Censors Cn. Servilius Cæpio
and L. Cassius Longinus B.C. 124. Gracchus belonged to the class of
Equites, and as such he had a Public horse. The censors summoned him to
account for leaving his province, and, if he was not able to justify
himself, he would be deprived of his horse and marked with the Nota
Censoria, in the lists of the Censors, the consequence of which was what
the Romans called Ignominia, or temporary civil incapacity.
If Caius was born B.C. 154 and had now (B.C. 124) served twelve years,
he entered the army B.C. 136, when he was eighteen. It is true as he
here says, that he was only required to serve ten years. This fragment
of his speech is preserved by Aulus Gellius (xv. 12), and it is
expressed with all the vigour of the best Roman style. A comparison of
this fragment with the passages from the speeches of Tiberius Gracchus,
which are given by Plutarch, is sufficient to show that Plutarch's
extracts are genuine. There appears to be an error in Plutarch as to the
"three years." Gellius makes Caius say: "Biennium fui in Provincia;" "I
was two years in the province:" and one MS. is said to have "two years"
([Greek: dietia]), which Coraes has adopted in his edition of Plutarch.
[94] Fregellæ was a subject city in the territory of the Volsci. The
people wished to have the Roman citizenship, and as it was refused they
rebelled. Fregellæ was destroyed by L. Opimius the Prætor B.C. 125.
Caius Gracchus was tried B.C. 124 before the Prætor Opimius on the
charge of conspiring with the people of Fregellæ. (Velleius, 2, c. 6.)
[95] Plutarch simply says the Plain ([Greek: to pedion]): but he means
the Campus Martius, or Field of Mars. Compare Marius c. 34. The Roman
writers often call the Campus Martius simply Campus.
The people did not mount on the house-tops to vote, as Amyot and
Kaltwasser say, if I understand them right. Crowds came to Rome, who had
no votes; they came to see and to affect the elections if they could.
Caius was elected tribune B.C. 123, just ten years after his brother's
tribunate. The consuls were Quintus Cæcilius Metellus Balearicus, a son
of Metellus Macedonicus, an opponent of Tiberius Gracchus, and Titus
Quinctius Flamininus. (See Tiberius Gracchus, c. 14 notes.)
[96] Cicero, in _Brutus_, c. 33, and in other passages, bears testimony
to the powerful eloquence of Caius Gracchus. Up to the time of Cicero,
the orations of Gracchus were the models of oratory which all Romans
studied. Cicero says that his speeches did not receive the finishing
touch; he left behind him many things which were well begun, but not
perfected. The practice of revising speeches for the purpose of
publication was common among the Athenian and Roman orators. In manly
and vigorous oratory we may doubt if Caius Gracchus ever had his equal
among the Romans; and if not among the Romans, where shall we look for
his equal?
[97] I have here allowed a word to stand by something of an oversight,
to which however there is no objection. Plutarch uses the word "law;"
but the Roman word is "Rogatio," which means a Bill, a proposed Law, so
called because the form of passing a law was to ask (rogare) the
assembly if they would have it. The form of voting was to reject
(antiquare) by the formula A., or to confirm (jubere) by the formula
U.R. (Uti Rogas), "as you propose," which were marked on the tabellæ or
voting-tablets. (Cicero, _Ad Attic._ i. 14.)
To Promulgate a law, or more properly a Rogation, signified among the
Romans, to make public (for promulgare is only another form of
Provulgare) a proposed law; to give notice of a proposed measure and its
contents. To promulgate a law in modern times means to make known a law
which is already a law; but the expression is not much used.
[98] P. Popillius Lænas was also consul with P. Rupilius B.C. 132. He
returned to Rome after the death of Caius Gracchus.
[99] The erecting of statues to their great men was probably more common
at Rome after the conquest of Greece, when they became acquainted with
Greek art. Rome at a later period was filled with statues. Though most
of the great Romans were distinguished by their military talents, it was
not only in respect of military fame that statues were erected; nor were
they confined to men as we see in this instance. The daughter of him who
conquered Hannibal, the wife of Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, a
successful general, a prudent politician and an honest man, the mother
of two sons who died in the cause of the people--the memory of such a
woman was perpetuated in the manner best suited to the age by an
imperishable monument.
[100] A complete view of the legislation of Gracchus is beyond the
limits of a note. Part of the subject has been referred to already.
(Tiberius Gracchus, c. 8, note.)
The Roman allies (Socii) were subjects of the Roman State, subject to
the sovereign power of Rome, a power which was distributed among many
members. They bore heavy burdens, particularly in the form of supplies
of men and money for war; and they claimed as an indemnification the
citizenship (civitas), or admission to the sovereign body, as members of
it. The claim was finally settled by the Marsic or Social war. (See
Marius and Sulla.)
The law about the price of grain belonged to the class of Laws which the
Romans called Frumenteriæ Leges, or Corn Laws; the object of these laws
was not to keep up the price of grain, but to furnish it to the poor at
a low rate. This low rate however was not effected in the only way in
which such an object could profitably be effected, by allowing corn to
come to Rome from all parts free of duty, but by buying grain with the
Public money and selling it to the poor at a lower rate. This law of
Gracchus proposed that corn should be sold to the people (plebs) monthly
at the rate of 5/6 of the as for a modius. This is the first recorded
instance in Roman History of the poor being relieved in this manner. The
city was crowded with poor who had few or no means of subsistence, but
had votes in the annual elections and were members of the sovereign
body. The consequences of such a measure might be easily foreseen: the
treasury became exhausted, and the people were taught to depend for
their subsistence, not on their industry, but on these almost gratuitous
distributions of grain. This allowance, which was made monthly, added to
the sale of their votes at the annual elections and the distributions on
extraordinary occasions, of corn and oil (Dion Cassius, 43, c. 31) helped
a poor Roman to live in idleness. This system of distributions of corn,
sometimes free of cost, being once established was continued all through
the Republic and under the Empire. It was impossible to stop the evil,
when it had been rooted, and in the crowded city of Rome under the
Empire, it was an important duty of the adminstration to prevent famine
and insurrection by provisioning the city. C. Julius Cæsar reduced the
number of those who received this corn relief from 320,000 to 150,000.
The number of receivers must have increased again, for Augustus reduced
the number to 200,000. This subject of the distribution of corn among
the poor is an important element in the history of the later Republic.
Dureau de la Malle (_Économie Politique des Romains_, ii. 307) has
compared it with the English mode of providing for the poor by the Poor
Laws; but though there are some striking points of resemblance between
the two systems, there are many differences, and the matter requires to
be handled with more knowledge and judgment than this writer has shown
in order to exhibit it in its proper light.
Plutarch's account of the changes made by Gracchus in the body of the
Judices is probably incorrect. The law of Gracchus related to trials for
offences, such as bribery at elections (ambitus), and corruption in the
administration of offices (repetundæ), which belong to the class of
trials called at a later time judicia publica or public trials. In the
trials for these offences, those who had to decide on the guilt or
innocence of the accused, were called judices; and the judices were
taken only from the senators. But as the persons accused of offences, of
the kind above mentioned generally belonged to the senatorian order, it
was found very difficult to get a man convicted. Some notorious
instances of acquittals of persons, who had been guilty of corruption,
had occurred just before Gracchus proposed his law. According to Appian,
his law gave the judicial power solely to the equites, who formed a kind
of middle class between the senators and the people. But the equites
were not a safe body to intrust with this power. To this body belonged
the publicani, or publicans as they are called in our translation of the
Gospels (_Matt._, ch. v., v. 47), who farmed the revenues in the
provinces. A governor who winked at the extortion of the farmers of
taxes would easily be acquitted, if he was tried for maladministration
on his return to Rome. The equites at Rome had an interest in acquitting
a man who favoured their order. Cicero remarks (_In Verrem_, Act Prima,
13) that the judices were selected out of the equites for near fifty
years until the functions were restored to the senate. He is alluding to
the change Sulla made B.C. 83; but it appears that there were some
intermediate changes. Cicero adds that during all this time there was
never the slightest suspicion of any eques taking a bribe in the
discharge of his functions as judex. Appian says that they soon became
corrupt; and Cicero, who is in the habit of contradicting himself, says
in effect the same thing (_In Verrem_, lib. iii. 41; _Brutus_, c. 34).
The judices of Gracchus condemned Opimius, whose character Cicero
admired. (See c. 18, notes.) The condemnation was either honest or
dishonest: if honest, Cicero is a dishonest man for complaining of the
sentence (_Pro Plancio_, c. 29): if dishonest then Cicero here
contradicts what he has said elsewhere. (See also _In Pisonem_, c. 39.)
I have used the Roman word judices, which is the word that Plutarch has
translated. These judices were selected out of the qualified body by lot
(at least this was the rule sometimes) for each particular trial. A
judge, generally the prætor, presided, and the guilt or innocence of the
accused was determined by the judices by a majority of votes; the votes
were given by ballot at this time.
This law of Gracchus about the judicia is a difficult subject, owing to
the conflicting evidence.
[101] The character of the Roman roads is here accurately described. The
straight lines in which they ran are nowhere more apparent than in
England, as may be seen by inspecting the Ordnance maps. That from
Lincoln to the Humber is a good example. It is conjectured that some of
the strong substructions at La Riccia (Aricia) on the Appian Road near
Rome may be the work of Caius; but I do not know on what this opinion
rests. (See _Classical Museum_, ii. 164.)
The Roman mile is tolerably well ascertained. It is variously estimated
at 1618 and 1614 yards, which is less than the English mile. The subject
of the stadium, which was the Greek measure of length, is fully examined
by Colonel Leake, _London Geographical Journal_, vol. ix.
[102] Caius Fannius Strabo must not be confounded with the historian of
the same name. He was consul B.C. 122 with C. Domitius Ahenobarbus.
Cicero speaks of an excellent speech of his against the proposal of
Gracchus to give the Latins the full citizenship, and the suffrage to
the Italian allies. (Cic., _Brutus_, c. 26.)
[103] M. Fulvius Flaccus was consul B.C. 125, and during his year of
office he defeated the Transalpine Ligurians. He was an orator of no
great note, but an active agitator. He perished with Caius Gracchus (c.
16): his house was pulled down, and the ground made public property.
[104] Plutarch's Life of the younger Scipio Africanus is lost. Scipio
died B.C. 159, six years before Caius was tribune. He had retired to
rest in the evening with some tablets on which he intended to write a
speech to deliver before the people on the subject of the Agrarian Law
of Tiberius Gracchus and the difficulties of carrying it into effect. He
was found dead in the morning, and it was the general opinion that he
was murdered. His wife Sempronia was suspected, and even Cornelia his
mother-in-law, as well as C. Gracchus. C. Papirius Carbo, one of the
triumviri for dividing the land with Caius and Fulvius Flaccus is
distinctly mentioned by Cicero as one of the murderers. As to him, there
is no doubt that he was believed to be guilty. It is also admitted by
all authorities that there was no inquiry into the death of Scipio; and
Appian adds that he had not even a public funeral.
[105] This was the first Roman colony that was established beyond the
limits of the Italian Peninsula, which Velleius reckons among the most
impolitic measures of Gracchus. The colony of Gracchus appears to have
been neglected, and the town was not built. At the destruction of
Carthage heavy imprecations were laid on any man who should restore the
city. The colony was established by Cæsar the Dictator.
The foundation of a Roman colony was accompanied with solemn
ceremonials, to which Plutarch alludes. The anniversary day of the
foundation was religiously observed. On some Roman coins there is a
representation of a man driving a yoke of oxen and a vexillum
(standard), which are the symbols of a Roman colony.