The Project Gutenberg eBook of Plutarch's Lives, Translated from the Greek by Aubrey Stewart and George Long.

So perish85 all who do the like again.

Subsequently, when Caius and Fulvius asked him, before an assembly of the people, what he thought of the death of Tiberius, he showed by his answer that he was not pleased with the measures of Tiberius. This made the people interrupt him with their shouts when he was speaking, as they had never done before; and Scipio was so far transported with passion as to break out into invectives against them. But of this I have spoken more particularly in the Life of Scipio.86

LIFE OF CAIUS GRACCHUS.

I. Caius Gracchus at first, either through fear of his enemies or with the view of making them odious, withdrew from the Forum87 and kept quiet at home, like a man humbled for the present, and intending for the future to keep aloof from public affairs; which gave occasion for some people to say that he disliked the measures of Tiberius, and had abandoned them. He was also still quite a youth, for he was nine years younger than his brother, and Tiberius was not thirty88 when he was killed. But in the course of time, as his character gradually displayed itself in his aversion to indolence, luxury, wine, and all matters of private profit, and it was clear, from his application to the study of eloquence, that he was preparing, as it were, his pinions for public life, and that he would not remain quiet; and further, when he showed by his defence of Vettius, one of his friends, who was under prosecution, the people all around him being wild and frantic with delight, that the rest of the orators were mere children, the nobles were again alarmed, and there was much talk among them that they would not allow Caius to obtain the tribunate. It happened without any set design that the lot fell on him to go as quæstor to Sardinia,89 under Orestes90 the consul, which pleased his enemies, and was not disagreeable to Caius. For he was fond of war, and equally disciplined for military service and speaking in the courts of justice; but he still shrunk from public affairs and the Rostra, and as he could not resist the invitations of the people and his friends, he was well pleased with this opportunity of leaving Rome. It is true it is a common opinion that Caius was a pure demagogue, and much more greedy of popular favour than Tiberius. But it was not so in fact, and Caius seems to have been involved in public affairs rather through a kind of necessity than choice. Cicero the orator also says that Caius declined all offices, and had determined to live in retirement, but that his brother appeared to him in a dream,91 and said, “Caius, why do you linger? There is no escape: one life for both of us, and one death in defence of the people is our fate.”

II. Now, Caius during his stay in Sardinia exhibited his excellent qualities in every way; he far surpassed all the young men in military courage, in upright conduct to the subject people, in loyalty and respect to the commander; and in temperance, frugality, and attention to his duties he excelled even his elders. The winter having been severe and unhealthy in Sardinia, the general demanded clothing for his soldiers from the cities, upon which they sent to Rome to pray to be relieved from this imposition. The Senate granted their petition, and ordered the general to get supplies for the troops by other means; but as the general was unable to do this, and the soldiers were suffering, Caius went round to the cities and induced them voluntarily to send clothing and to assist the Romans. This, being reported to Rome, made the Senate uneasy, for they viewed it as a preliminary to popular agitation. Ambassadors also arrived at Rome from Libya, with a message from King Micipsa,92 that the king had sent corn to the commander in Sardinia, out of respect for Caius Gracchus. The Senate, taking offence at the message, would not receive the ambassadors, and they passed a decree that fresh troops should be sent out to replace those in Sardinia, but that Orestes should stay; intending by this measure to keep Caius there also, in respect of his office. On this being done, Caius immediately set sail in a passion, and appearing at Rome contrary to all expectation, was not only blamed by his enemies, but even the people considered it a strange thing for the quæstor to leave his general behind. However, when the matter was brought before the Censors,93 he asked for permission to make his defence, and he produced such a change in the opinions of his audience, that he was acquitted, and considered to have been exceedingly ill used: he said that he had served in the army for twelve years, while others were only required to serve ten years, and that he had exercised the functions of quæstor to the commander for three years, though the law allowed him to return after one year’s service; he added that he was the only soldier who took out a full purse with him and brought it back empty, while the rest took out with them only jars of wine, which they had emptied in Sardinia, and brought them back full of gold and silver.

III. After this, his enemies brought fresh charges against him, and harassed him with prosecutions on the ground of causing the defection of the allies and having participated in the conspiracy which had been detected at Fregellæ.94 But he cleared himself of all suspicion, and having established his innocence, immediately set about canvassing for the tribunate. All the men of distinction, without exception, opposed him; and so great a multitude flocked to Rome from all parts of Italy, to the Comitia, that many of them could not find lodgings, and the Campus Martius95 being unable to contain the numbers, they shouted from the house-tops and tilings. However, the nobility so far prevailed against the people as to disappoint the hopes of Caius, inasmuch as he was not returned first, as he expected, but only fourth. But upon entering on his office he soon made himself first, for he surpassed every Roman in eloquence,96 and his misfortunes gave him a licence for speaking freely when lamenting the fate of his brother. He took every opportunity of directing the thoughts of the people to this subject, reminding them of former times, and contrasting the conduct of their ancestors, who went to war with the Falisci on behalf of Gemicius, a tribune, who had been insulted by them, and condemned Caius Veturius to death because he was the only man that did not make way for a tribune as he was passing through the Forum. “But before your eyes,” he exclaimed, “these men beat Tiberius to death with staves, and his body was dragged through the midst of the city to be thrown into the Tiber; and all his friends who were caught were put to death without trial. And yet it is an old usage among us, if a man is accused of a capital charge and does not appear, for a trumpeter to come to the door of his house in the morning and summon him by the sound of the trumpet, and the judices cannot vote upon the charge till this has been done. So circumspect and careful were the Romans of old in the trials of persons accused.”

IV. Having first stirred up the people by such harangues as these (and he had a very loud voice, and was most vigorous in speech), he promulgated two laws:97 one, to the effect that if the people had deprived any magistrate of his office, he should be incapacitated from holding office a second time; and the other, which rendered a magistrate liable to a public prosecution if he had banished any citizen without trial. One of these rogations had the direct effect of branding with infamy Marcus Octavius, who had been deprived of the tribunate by Tiberius; and Popillius98 came within the penalties of the other, for during his prætorship he had banished the friends of Tiberius. Popillius did not stand his trial, and he fled from Italy; but the other law Caius himself withdrew, saying that he refrained from touching Octavius at the request of his mother Cornelia. The people admired his conduct on this occasion, and gave their consent, for they respected Cornelia no less for the sake of her sons than her father; and afterwards they set up a bronze statue99 of her, with the inscription—Cornelia, Mother of the Gracchi. There are recorded several things that Caius said in defence of his mother in a rhetorical and coarse way, in reply to one of his enemies. “What,” said he, “do you abuse Cornelia, the mother of Tiberius?” And as the man laboured under the imputation of being a dissolute fellow, he added, “How can you have the impudence to compare yourself with Cornelia? Have you been a mother, as she has?”—and more to the like effect, but still coarser. Such was the bitterness of his language, and many like things occur in his writings.

V. Of the laws100 which he promulgated with the view of gaining the popular favour and weakening the Senate, one was for the establishment of colonies and the distribution of Public Land among the poor; another provided for supplying the soldiers with clothing at the public expense, without any deduction on this account being made from their pay, and exempted youths under seventeen years of age from being drafted for the army; a third was in favour of the allies, and put the Italians on the same footing as the citizens with respect to the suffrage; another related to grain, and had for its object the lowering of the price for the poor; the last related to the judices, a measure which most of all encroached on the privileges of the senate—for the senate alone supplied judices for the trials, and this privilege rendered that body formidable both to the people and the equites. The law of Gracchus added three hundred equites to the senate, who were also three hundred in number, and it made the judices eligible out of the whole six hundred. In his endeavours to carry this law he is said to have made every exertion; and in particular it is recorded that all the popular leaders who preceded him turned their faces to the senate and the comitium while they were speaking, but he was the first who turned his face the other way to the Forum while haranguing the people, and he continued to do so; and by a small deviation and alteration in attitude he stirred a great question, and in a manner transformed the government from an aristocratical to a democratical form, by this new attitude intimating that the orators should direct their speeches to the many and not to the senate.

VI. The people not only passed this law, but empowered Gracchus to select from the equites those who were to act as judices, which conferred on him a kind of monarchical authority, and even the senate now assented to the measures which he proposed in their body. But all the measures which he proposed were honourable to the senate; such, for instance, was the very equitable and just decree about the grain which Fabius the proprætor sent from Iberia. Gracchus induced the senate to sell the grain and to return the money which it produced to the Iberian cities, and further to censure Fabius for making the Roman dominion heavy and intolerable to the subject nations; this measure brought him great reputation and popularity in the provinces. He also introduced measures for sending out colonies, the construction of roads, and the building of public granaries; and he made himself director and superintendent for the carrying all these measures into effect. Though engaged in so many great undertakings, he was never wearied, but with wonderful activity and labour he effected every single object as if he had for the time no other occupation, so that even those who thoroughly hated and feared him were struck with amazement at the rapidity and perfect execution of all that he undertook. But the people looked with admiration on the man himself, seeing him attended by crowds of building-contractors, artificers, ambassadors, magistrates, soldiers, and learned men, to all of whom he was easy of access; and while he maintained his dignity, he was affable to all, and adapted his behaviour to the condition of every individual, and so proved the falsehood of those who called him tyrannical or arrogant or violent. He thus showed himself more skilful as a popular leader in his dealings with men, and in his conduct, than in his harangues from the Rostra.

VII. But Caius busied himself most about the construction of roads,101 having in view utility, convenience, and ornament. The roads were made in a straight line, right through the country, partly of quarried stone and partly with tight-rammed masses of earth. By filling up the depressions, and throwing bridges across those parts which were traversed by winter torrents or deep ravines, and raising the road on both sides to the same uniform height, the whole line was made level and presented an agreeable appearance. He also measured all the roads by miles (the Roman mile is not quite eight Greek stadia), and fixed stone blocks to mark the distances. He placed other stones at less distances from one another on each side of the road, that persons might thus easily mount their horses without assistance.

VIII. As the people extolled him for all these services, and were ready to show their good will towards him in any way, he said on one occasion when he was addressing them, that he would ask a favour, which he would value above everything if it was granted, but if it were refused, he should not complain. It was accordingly expected that he would ask for the consulship, and everybody supposed that he would be a candidate for the consulship and the tribunate at the same time. When the consular comitia were near, and all were at the highest point of expectation, Caius appeared conducting Caius Fannius into the Campus Martius, and canvassing with his friends for Fannius.102 This gave Fannius a great advantage. Fannius was elected consul, and Caius tribune for the second time, though he was neither a candidate nor canvassed, but his election was entirely due to the zeal of the people. Perceiving, however, that the senate was clearly opposed to him, and that the kind feeling of Fannius towards him cooled, he forthwith endeavoured to attach the people by other measures, by proposing to send colonies to Tarentum and Capua, and by inviting the Latins to a participation in the Roman franchise. The senate, fearing that Gracchus would become irresistible, attempted a new and unusual method of diverting the people from him, by opposing popular measures to his, and by gratifying the people, contrary to sound policy. Livius Drusus was one of the colleagues of Caius, a man by birth and education inferior to none in Rome, and in character, eloquence, and wealth equal to any who enjoyed either honour or power by the aid of these advantages. To him accordingly the chief nobles applied, and they urged him to attack Caius, and to unite with them against him, not by adopting violent measures, nor coming into collision with the many, but by a course of administration adapted to please, and by making such concessions as it would have been honourable to refuse, even at the risk of unpopularity.

IX. Livius, having agreed to employ his tribunitian authority on the side of the senate, framed measures which had neither any honourable nor any useful object: he only had in view to outbid Caius in the popular favour, just as it is in a comedy, by making himself busy and vying with his rival. This showed most clearly that the senate were not displeased with the measures of Caius, but only wished to destroy him or completely humble him. When Caius proposed to send out ten colonies consisting of citizens of the best character, the senate accused him of truckling to the people; but they co-operated with Livius, who proposed twelve colonies, each of which was to consist of three thousand needy citizens. They set themselves in opposition to Caius when he proposed to distribute land among the poor, subject to a yearly payment to the treasury from each, on the ground that he was trying to gain the popular favour; but they were satisfied when Livius proposed to relieve the colonists even from this payment. Further, Caius gave them offence by proposing to confer on the Latins the Roman suffrage; but when Livius brought forward a measure which forbade any Latin to be beaten with rods even while serving in the army, they supported it. And indeed Livius himself, in his harangues to the people, always said that he only proposed what was agreeable to the senate, who had a regard for the many; which indeed was the only good that resulted from his measures. For the people became more pacifically disposed towards the senate; and though the most distinguished of them were formerly suspected and hated by the people, Livius did away with and softened their recollection of past grievances and their ill feeling, by giving out that it was in accordance with the wish of the senate that he had entered upon his popular career and framed measures to please the many.

X. But the best proof to the people of the good intentions and honesty of Livius was, that he proposed nothing for himself or in behalf of his own interests; for he appointed other persons to superintend the establishment of the colonies, and he did not meddle with the administration of the money, while Caius had assigned to himself most of such functions, and the most important of them. It happened that Rubrius, one of the tribunes, had proposed a measure for the colonisation of Carthage, which had been destroyed by Scipio; and as the lot fell on Caius, he set sail to Libya to found the colony. In his absence, Drusus, making still further advances, insinuated himself into the favour of the people, and gained them over mainly by calumniating Fulvius.103 This Fulvius was a friend of Caius and a joint commissioner for the distribution of lands; but he was a noisy fellow, and specially disliked by the senate; he was also suspected by others of stirring up the allies, and secretly encouraging the Italians to revolt; and though this was said without proof or inquiry, Fulvius himself gave it credit by his unwise and revolutionary policy. This more than anything else destroyed the popularity of Caius, who came in for his share of the odium against Fulvius. And when Scipio104 Africanus died without any obvious cause, and certain signs of blows and violence were supposed to be visible on the body, as I told in the Life of Scipio, the suspicion fell chiefly on Fulvius, who was his enemy, and on that day had abused Scipio from the Rostra. Suspicion attached to Caius also. So abominable a crime committed against the first and greatest of the Romans went unpunished, and there was not even an inquiry; for the many opposed it and stopped the investigation through fear for Caius, lest he should be discovered to be implicated in the murder. These events, indeed, belong to an earlier period.

XI. In Libya, as to the foundation of Carthage,105 which Caius named Junonia, which is the same as Heraea, it is said there were many supernatural hindrances. For the first standard was seized and broken by a violent gust of wind, though the standard-bearer stuck to it vigorously; and the victims which were lying on the altars were dispersed by a tempest, and scattered beyond the stakes which marked the limits of the city, and the stakes were torn up by the wolves and carried a long way off. However Caius, after settling and arranging everything in seventy days, returned to Rome upon hearing that Fulvius was hard pressed by Drusus, and that affairs required his presence. Lucius Opimius, a man who belonged to the faction of the oligarchs,106 and had great influence in the senate, failed on a former occasion when he was a candidate for the consulship, at the time when Caius brought forward Fannius and canvassed against Opimius; but now, being supported by a powerful party, it was expected that Opimius would be elected consul and would put down Caius, whose influence was already in some degree on the wane, and the people also were tired of such measures as his, for there were many who sought their favour, and the senate easily gave way.

XII. On his return from Libya, Caius removed from the Palatium to the neighbourhood of the Forum, as being a more popular place of residence, for it happened that most of the lowest classes of the poor lived there; he next promulgated the rest of his measures, intending to take the vote of the people upon them. As crowds were collecting from all parts to support Caius, the senate prevailed on the consul Fannius to drive out of the city all who were not Romans. Accordingly a strange and unusual proclamation was made, to the effect that none of the allies or friends of the Roman state should appear in Rome during those days; on which Caius published a counter edict, in which he criminated the consul and promised his support to the allies if they remained in Rome. But he did not keep his promise; for though he saw one of them, who was his own friend and intimate, dragged off by the officers of Fannius, he passed by without helping him, whether it was that he feared to put to the test his power which was now on the decline, or that he did not choose, as he said, to give his enemies the opportunity which they were seeking of coming to a collision and a struggle. It also chanced that he had incurred the ill-will of his fellow-colleagues, in the following manner:—The people were going to see an exhibition of gladiators in the Forum, and most of the magistrates had constructed seats round the place, with the intention of letting them for hire. But Caius urged them to remove the seats, that the poor might be able to see the show without paying. As no one took any notice of what he said, he waited till the night before the show, when he went with the workmen whom he had under him, and removed the seats, and at daybreak he pointed out to the people that the place was clear; for which the many considered him a man, but he offended his colleagues, who viewed him as an audacious and violent person. Owing to this circumstance, it is supposed, he lost his third tribunate, though he had most votes, for it is said that his colleagues acted illegally and fraudulently in the proclamation and return. This, however, was disputed. Caius did not bear his failure well: and to his enemies, who were exulting over him, he is said to have observed, with more arrogance than was befitting, that their laugh was a sardonic laugh,107 for they knew not what a darkness his political measures had spread all around them.

XIII. After effecting the election of Opimius to the consulship, the enemies of Caius began to repeal many of his laws and to disturb the settlement of Carthage, for the purpose of irritating Caius, in order that he might give them some cause of quarrel, and so be got rid of. He endured this for some time, but his friends, and especially Fulvius, beginning to urge him on, he again attempted to combine his partisans against the consul. On this occasion it is said that his mother also helped him, by hiring men from remote parts and sending them to Rome in the disguise of reapers, for it is supposed that these matters are obscurely alluded to in her letters108 to her son. Others, on the contrary, say that this was done quite contrary to the wishes of Cornelia. On the day on which the party of Opimius intended to repeal the laws of Caius, the Capitol had been occupied by the opposite faction early in the morning. The consul had offered the sacrifices, and one of his officers, named Quintus Antyllius,109 was carrying the viscera to another part, when he said to the partisans of Fulvius, “Make way for honest men, you rascals.” Some say that as he uttered these words he also held out his bare arm with insulting gestures. However this may be, Antyllius was killed on the spot, being pierced with large styles110 said to have been made expressly for the purpose. The people were greatly disturbed at the murder, but it produced exactly opposite effects on the leaders of the two parties. Caius was deeply grieved at what had happened, and abused his party for having given a handle to their enemies, who had long been looking for it; but Opimius, as if he had got the opportunity which he wanted, was highly elated, and urged the people to avenge the murder.

XIV. A torrent of rain happened to fall just then, and the meeting was dissolved. Early on the following day Opimius summoned the senate to transact business. In the mean time the naked body of Antyllius was placed on a bier, and, according to arrangement, carried through the Forum past the senate-house with loud cries and lamentations. Opimius, though he knew what was going on, pretended to be surprised at the noise, and the senators went out to see what was the matter. When the bier had been set down in the midst of the crowd, the senators began to express their indignation at so horrible and monstrous a crime; but this only moved the people to hate and execrate the oligarchs, who, after murdering Tiberius Gracchus in the Capitol, a tribune, had treated his body with insult; while Antyllius, a mere servant, who perhaps had not deserved his fate, yet was mainly to blame for what happened, was laid out in the Forum, and surrounded by the Roman senate lamenting and assisting at the funeral of a hireling; and all this merely to accomplish the ruin of the only remaining guardian of the people’s liberties. On returning to the senate-house, the senators passed a decree111 by which the consul Opimius was directed to save the state in such way as he could, and to put down the tyrants. Opimius gave notice to the senators to arm, and each eques was commanded to bring in the morning two armed slaves. On the other side, Fulvius also made preparation and got together a rabble; but Caius as he left the Forum stood opposite his father’s statue, and looking at it for some time without speaking, at last burst into tears, and fetching a deep sigh, walked away. The sight of this moved many of the spectators to compassion, and blaming themselves for deserting the man and betraying him, they came to the house of Caius and passed the night at his door; but not in the same manner as those who watched about the house of Fulvius, for they spent the night in tumult and shouting, drinking, and bragging what they would do. Fulvius himself, who was the first to get drunk, spoke and acted in a way quite unseemly for a man of his age. The followers of Caius, viewing the state of affairs as a public calamity, kept quiet, thinking of the future, and they passed the night watching and sleeping in turns.

XV. At daybreak Fulvius was with difficulty roused from his drunken sleep, and his partisans, arming themselves with the warlike spoils in his house, which he had taken in his victory over the Gauls during his consulship, with loud threats and shouts went to seize the Aventine Hill.112 Caius would not arm, but went out in his toga just as if he was proceeding to the Forum, with only a short dagger at his side. As he was going out at the door, his wife met him, and throwing one arm round him, while she held in the other their little child, said, “Caius, not as in time past do I take my leave of you going to the Rostra as tribune and as legislator, nor yet going to a glorious war, where, if you died in the service of your country, you would still leave me an honoured grief; but you are going to expose yourself to the murderers of Tiberius: ’tis right indeed to go unarmed, and to suffer rather than do wrong, but you will perish without benefiting the state. The worst has now prevailed; force and the sword determine all controversies. If your brother had died at Numantia, his body would have been restored to us on the usual terms of war; but now perchance I too shall have to supplicate some river or the sea to render up to me your corpse from its keeping. What faith can we put in the laws or in the deities since the murder of Tiberius?” While Licinia was thus giving vent to sorrow, Gracchus gently freed himself from his wife’s embrace, and went off in silence with his friends. Licinia, as she attempted to lay hold of his dress, fell down on the floor, and lay there some time speechless, until her slaves took her up fainting, and carried her to her brother Crassus.

XVI. When they were all assembled, Fulvius, at the request of Caius, sent his younger son with a caduceus113 to the Forum. He was a most beautiful youth, and with great decorum and modesty, and with tears in his eyes he addressed to the consul and the senate the message of conciliation. The majority who were present were not disinclined to come to terms; but Opimius replied, that Fulvius and Gracchus must not attempt to bring the senate to an accommodation through the medium of a messenger; they must consider themselves as citizens who had to account for their conduct, and come down and surrender, and then beg for mercy; he further told the youth that these were the terms on which he must come a second time, or not at all. Now Caius, it is said, wished to go and clear himself before the senate, but as no one else assented, Fulvius again sent his son to address the senate on their behalf in the same terms as before. But Opimius, who was eager to come to blows, forthwith ordered the youth to be seized and put in prison, and advanced against the party of Fulvius with many legionary soldiers and Cretan bowmen114 who mainly contributed to put them into confusion by discharging their arrows and wounding them. The partisans of Fulvius being put to flight, he made his escape into a bath that was not used where he was soon discovered and put to death with his elder son. Caius was not observed to take any part in the contest, but greatly troubled at what was taking place, he retired to the temple of Diana, and was going to kill himself there, but was prevented by his faithful friends Pomponius and Licinius, who took the sword away and induced him to fly. It is said that he went down on his knees in the temple, and stretching out his hands to the statue of the goddess, prayed that the Roman people, for their ingratitude and treachery to him, might always be slaves; for the greater part of them had openly gone over to the other side upon an amnesty115 being proclaimed.

XVII. In his flight Caius was followed by his enemies, who were near overtaking him at the wooden bridge,116 but his two friends, bidding him make his escape, opposed the pursuers and allowed no man to pass the head of the bridge till they were killed. Caius was accompanied by a single slave, named Philocrates,117 and though all the spectators urged him to fly, just as if they were shouting at a race, yet no one, though he prayed for it, would come to his aid or lend him a horse: for the pursuers were close upon him. He just escaped into a sacred grove of the Furies,118 and there he fell by the hand of Philocrates, who killed himself on the body of his master. Some say both of them were taken alive by their enemies, and that the slave embraced his master so closely, that Caius could not be struck until the slave had been dispatched first, and with many blows. It is said that a man cut off the head of Caius and was carrying it away, but it was taken from him by a friend of Opimius named Septimuleius; for proclamation had been made at the beginning of the contest, that those who brought the heads of Caius and Fulvius should have their weight in gold. The head of Caius was brought to Opimius by Septimuleius stuck on a spear, and it weighed seventeen pounds and two-thirds in the scales. Septimuleius was a scoundrel and a knave119 here also, for he had taken out the brain and dropped melted lead in its place. Those who brought the head of Fulvius got nothing, for they belonged to the lower class. The bodies of Caius and Fulvius and their partisans were thrown into the river, the number of dead being three thousand: their property was sold and the produce paid into the treasury. They also forbade the women to lament for their relatives, and Licinia was deprived of her marriage portion. But their conduct was most cruel to the younger son of Fulvius, who had neither raised up his hand against them nor been among the combatants; for he was seized before the battle, when he came to treat of terms, and was put to death after the battle. But what most of all vexed the people was the circumstance of Opimius erecting a temple to Concord, which was viewed as an evidence of his insolence and arrogance, and as a kind of triumph for the slaughter of so many citizens. Accordingly by night some person wrote under the inscription on the temple the following line:—

The work of Discord120 makes the temple of Concord.

XVIII. This Opimius,121 the first man that ever exercised the dictatorial power in the office of consul, and who had condemned without trial three thousand citizens, and among them Caius Gracchus and Fulvius Flaccus122—Flaccus, a consular, who had enjoyed a triumph; Gracchus, the first man of his age in character and reputation—this Opimius did not keep himself free from corruption. Being sent as a commissioner to Jugurtha, the Numidian, he was bribed by him, and being convicted of most shameful corruption, he spent the last years of his life in infamy, hated and insulted by the people, who, though humbled and depressed for the time, soon showed how much they desired and regretted the Gracchi. For they had statues of the two brothers made and set up in public places, and the spots on which they fell were declared sacred ground, to which people brought all the first fruits of the seasons, and many persons daily offered sacrifices there and worshipped, just as at the temples of the gods.

XIX. Cornelia is said to have borne her misfortunes with a noble and elevated spirit, and to have said of the sacred ground on which her sons were murdered, that they had a tomb worthy of them. She resided in the neighbourhood of Misenum, without making any change in her usual mode of life. She had many friends, and her hospitable table was always crowded with guests; Greeks and learned men were constantly about her, and kings sent and received presents from her. To all her visitors and friends she was a most agreeable companion: [Pg 112]

[Pg 113]

[Pg 114]she would tell them of the life and habits of her father Africanus, and, what is most surprising, would speak of her sons without showing sorrow or shedding a tear, relating their sufferings and their deeds to her inquiring friends as if she was speaking of the men of olden time. This made some think that her understanding had been impaired by old age or the greatness of her sorrows, and that she was dull to all sense of her misfortunes, while in fact such people themselves were too dull to see what a support it is against grief to have a noble nature, and to be of honourable lineage and honourably bred; and that though fortune has often the advantage over virtue in its attempts to guard against evils, yet she cannot take away from virtue the power of enduring them with fortitude.123

COMPARISON OF TIBERIUS AND CAIUS GRACCHUS WITH AGIS AND KLEOMENES.

I. Now that we have completed the narrative of these men’s lives, it remains for us to compare them with one another. As for the Gracchi, not even their bitterest enemies could deny that they were the most virtuous of all the Romans, or that they were excellently well nurtured and educated; while Agis and Kleomenes appear to have excelled them in strength of mind, because they both, after having been brought up in the same fashion by which their elders had been corrupted, became the restorers of temperance and simplicity of life. Furthermore, the Gracchi, who lived at a period when Rome was at the height of its greatness and renown, felt ashamed to fall short of the glorious achievements of their forefathers; while the virtuous impulses of the others were not checked by their fathers having pursued the opposite course of policy, or by the miserable and distracted condition of their country. The greatest proof of the unselfishness and indifference to money of the Gracchi is that they filled various offices in the state, and yet kept their hands clean from dishonest gains; while it would be an insult to Agis to praise him for not having taken other men’s money, as he gave up to his countrymen his own private property, which alone was worth six hundred talents. If then he thought it discreditable for him to be richer than any of his countrymen, even though his riches were lawfully acquired, what must have been his abhorrence of those who obtain money wrongfully.

II. There was also a great difference in the boldness and extent of their schemes of reform. The Gracchi were chiefly engaged in the construction of roads and the founding of cities, and Tiberius’s most important measure of reform was the division of the public lands among the people, while the best act of his brother Caius was the establishment of a mixed tribunal by adding to the three hundred Senators three hundred Roman Knights. The revolution effected by Agis and Kleomenes was of quite a different kind. They thought, in Plato’s words, that to proceed by slow degrees was merely cutting off the heads of the hydra,124 and therefore they by one comprehensive measure swept away all abuses at once: although it would be nearer the truth to say that they swept all abuses out of the state by restoring to it its original constitution. It may also be observed that the reforms of the Gracchi were opposed by some of the most powerful men in Rome, whereas the legislation which was begun by Agis, and completed by Kleomenes, followed a famous and ancient precedent, the rhetras on sobriety and equality which had been communicated to their ancestors by Lykurgus with the sanction of the Pythian Apollo. It is also most important to notice that the reforms of the Gracchi made Rome no greater than she was before, while the acts of Kleomenes enabled him in a short time to make Sparta mistress of the whole of Peloponnesus, and to engage in a contest with the most powerful man of his time, with the object of ridding Greece from Illyrian and Gaulish mercenary troops, and of renewing its ancient glories under the rule of the Herakleidæ.

III. I think too that the deaths of these men show a certain difference in their courage. The Gracchi fought with their countrymen, and were slain by them while flying, while of the other two, Agis may almost be said to have died voluntarily, because he would not put a citizen to death, while Kleomenes, when insulted and ill-treated, fiercely attempted to avenge himself, and as circumstances prevented his succeeding, bravely killed himself. It may be said on the other side that Agis never distinguished himself in the field, and we may set against the many brilliant victories of Kleomenes the scaling of the wall of Carthage by Tiberius Gracchus, no slight achievement, and the peace which he made with the Numantines, by which he saved the lives of twenty thousand Roman soldiers, who could not otherwise have hoped to survive; while Caius, in several campaigns both in Italy and Sardinia, showed great military skill; so that they both might have rivalled the fame of the greatest generals of Rome, had they not been cut off so soon.

IV. In political matters Agis appears to have shown weakness, as he allowed Agesilaus to cheat the citizens out of their promised redistribution of lands, and in a feeble and vacillating manner announced his intention and then abandoned it. The cause of his irresolution was his extreme youth; while Kleomenes on the other hand effected his revolution with too great promptitude and daring, putting the Ephors to death without a trial, when it would have been easy for him to have won them over to his side, and banishing many of the citizens. It is not the part either of a wise physician or of a good politician to use the knife except in the last extremity, but it shows a want of skill in both, and in the latter case it is unjust as well as cruel. Of the Gracchi, neither would begin a civil war, and Caius is said not even to have defended himself when struck, but though forward enough in battle he was loth to fight in a party quarrel; for he appeared in public unarmed, and retired when fighting began, and evidently took more pains not to do any harm than not to suffer any. For this reason we must regard the flight of both the Gracchi as a proof, not of cowardice, but of caution; for they must either have retreated when attacked or have retaliated upon their opponents.

V. The heaviest charge that can be brought against Tiberius is that he deposed his colleague from the tribuneship, and afterwards sought a second tribuneship for himself. As for the murder of Antyllius, Caius Gracchus was most falsely and unjustly accused of it, for he did not wish him to die, and was grieved at his death. Again Kleomenes, not to speak of his massacre of the Ephors, set all the slaves at liberty, and practically made himself despot of the kingdom, although for form’s sake he associated his brother with him, who was of the same family. And when Archidamus, who was the next heir to the throne of the other royal house, was persuaded by him to return from Messene to Sparta, as Kleomenes did not avenge his death, he caused men to suspect that he himself had some share in it. Yet Lykurgus, whom he affected to imitate, abdicated the throne of his own free will in favour of his nephew Charilaus, and fearing that if the child died by any mischance he might be thought guilty of having caused its death, he travelled abroad for a long time and did not return until Charilaus had begotten a son to succeed him. However, no Greek can bear comparison with Lykurgus; yet we have proved that Kleomenes effected greater reforms, and showed less respect to the laws than any of the others. Both the Greeks have been blamed for having from the very outset aimed at being nothing more than warlike despots; while the worst enemies of the Romans only charge them with an immoderate ambition, and admit that they became so excited by the contest with their political opponents that the natural heat of their temper drove them in spite of themselves like a baleful gust of wind to advocate extreme measures. What indeed can be more just or honourable than the objects with which they started; for their troubles were brought upon them by the opposition which the rich offered to their laws, so that the one was forced to fight to save his own life, while the other endeavoured to avenge his brother, who was slain without law or justice? From what has been said the reader can himself form an opinion about their respective merits, but if I must say what I think of each, I should give the highest place in respect of virtue to Tiberius Gracchus; I think that the young Agis committed the fewest crimes; while in daring and action Caius fell far short of Kleomenes.

LIFE OF DEMOSTHENES.

I. The writer of the Ode to Alkibiades on the occasion of his winning the chariot-race at Olympia, whether he was Euripides, as is commonly supposed, or some other poet, my friend Sossius, tells us that the first thing necessary for a perfectly happy man is that he should be born a citizen of some famous city. But for my own part I believe that for the enjoyment of true happiness, which depends chiefly upon a man’s character and disposition, it makes no difference whether he be born in an obscure state or of an ill-favoured mother, or not. It would indeed be absurd if one were to suppose that the town of Iulis, which is only a small part of the little island of Keos or Ægina, which some Athenian bade his countrymen clear away because it was an eyesore to Peiræus, should be able to produce good actors and poets, and yet be unable to bring forth a just, virtuous, sensible and high-minded man. We may reasonably expect that those arts by which men gain glory or profit should be neglected and fall into decay in small and obscure towns; but virtue, like a hardy plant, can take root in any country where it meets with noble natures and industrious disposition. I myself therefore must lay the blame of my intellectual and moral shortcomings, not upon the insignificance of my native city, but upon myself.

II. However, when a man is engaged in compiling a history from materials which are not ready to his hand, but for the most part are to be found scattered through other foreign towns, it becomes really of the first importance that he should live in some famous, cultivated, and populous city, where he can have unlimited access to books of all kinds, and where he can also personally collect and inquire into the truth of those stories which, though not reduced to writing, are all the more likely to be true because they rest upon universal popular tradition. The work of a historian who is deprived of these advantages must necessarily be defective in many essential particulars. Now I, who belong to a small city, and who love to live in it lest it should become even smaller, when I was at Rome, and during my travels in Italy, found my time so taken up with political business and with the care of my pupils in philosophy, that I had no leisure to learn the Roman language, and have only applied myself to Latin literature at a very advanced period of life. In this reading of Latin books, singular as it may appear, I did not find that the words assisted me to discover the meaning, but rather that my knowledge of the history enabled me to find out the meaning of the words. I think that to speak the Latin language with elegance, to understand it readily, and to use its various idioms and phrases correctly, is for a literary man both useful and interesting; but the amount of study and practice which it requires is considerable and should only be undertaken by those who are younger than myself, and who have more leisure time to devote to the acquisition of such accomplishments.

III. In consequence of these considerations, in this my fifth book of Parallel Lives, which deals with the lives of Demosthenes and Cicero, I intend to describe their several characters, and to compare them with one another by means of their political acts, but I do not mean to examine minutely into their respective speeches, or to decide which of the two was the more pleasing or the more able orator. Were I to attempt such a task, I should be forgetting Ion’s proverb about a “fish out of water,” like the all-accomplished Cæcilius, who has boldly taken upon himself to write a comparison of Demosthenes with Cicero. Perhaps, however, we might begin to doubt the divine origin of the commandment “know thyself,” if we found men always ready to apply it. Indeed Heaven appears to have originally intended to form the characters of Demosthenes and Cicero on the same model, and in some instances to have implanted in them precisely the same qualities, such as great personal ambition, love of freedom, and want of courage in the wars, yet to have left much to chance. I think it would be difficult to find an instance of any two other orators who both rose from a humble station to great power and influence, who both opposed absolute monarchs, both lost favourite daughters, were both exiled and brought back with honour, who both when flying from their country a second time fell into the hands of their enemies, and with whose deaths the liberties of their countrymen were finally extinguished; so that it is hard to say whether their resemblance is due more to nature, which originally moulded their characters alike, or to fortune, which placed then in exactly similar circumstances. First, then, I will relate the life of the elder of the two.

IV. The father of Demosthenes was also named Demosthenes, and belonged, according to Theopompus, to the best class of Athenian citizens. He was commonly called “the sword cutler,” because he possessed a large workshop and many slaves skilled in cutlery. As for the accusation which the orator Æschines brings against his mother, that she was the daughter of one Gylon, who was banished for treason, by a foreign woman, we cannot tell whether it is true or only a calumnious imputation. Demosthenes was left an orphan at the age of seven years, and was the heir to considerable property, amounting in all to no less than fifteen talents. He was scandalously ill-used by his guardians, who appropriated much of his income, and neglected the rest so much that he was unable to pay his teachers. He grew up ignorant of much that a boy of good birth is expected to learn, partly for this reason, and partly on account of his weak health, which caused his mother to keep him away from school. He was a sickly child, and it is said that the opprobrious nickname of Batalus was bestowed upon him by his school-fellows because of his bodily weakness. Batalus, according to some writers, was an effeminate flute-player, whose habits were satirized in a comic drama written by Antiphanes. Others assert that Batalus was a poet who wrote in a drunken licentious style; and there seems also some foundation for the belief that this word was used for a certain part of the human body by the Athenians of that time. The other nickname of Demosthenes, Argas, either alludes to his savage and harsh temper, for some poets use the word to mean a snake; or else it refers to his speeches, as wearying those who heard them; for Argas was the name of a poet whose verses were bad and tiresome. And, as Plato says, so much for this.

V. We are told that he was first led to turn his attention, to oratory by the following incident. When Kallistratus was going to make a speech in court about the affair of Oropus125 great interest was taken in the trial because of the ability of the orator, who at that time was at the height of his reputation, and also because of the important character of the law suit. Demosthenes, hearing his teachers and attendants making arrangement to be present at the trial, persuaded his own servant by great entreaties to take him to hear the speeches. The man, who was intimate with the doorkeepers of the court, managed to obtain a place for Demosthenes, in which the boy could sit unseen by the public and hear all that was said. Kallisthenes spoke very brilliantly and was much admired. He excited the envy of Demosthenes by the honours which he received, as he was escorted home by a long train of friends who congratulated him upon his success; but the boy was even more impressed by the power of his eloquence, which enabled him to deal with everything just as he pleased. In consequence of this Demosthenes neglected all other branches of learning, neglected all the sports of childhood, and laboriously practised and exercised himself in the art of oratory, meaning some day to become an orator himself. He studied rhetoric under Isaeus, although Isokrates was giving lessons at the same time, either, according to some writers, because, being an orphan, he was unable to raise the sum of ten minæ which Isokrates demanded as a fee, or because he thought that the vigorous invective of Isaeus was more what he required to learn. Hermippus informs us that he read in some anonymous work that Demosthenes was a scholar of Plato, and learned much of the art of speaking from him, while he mentions having heard from Ktesibius that Demosthenes had been lent the works of Isokrates and Alkidamas by one Kallias, a Syracusan, and some others, and that he used to read and practise himself in them in secret.

VI.. When he came of age he at once brought a series of actions against his guardians for malversation of his property, while they resorted to every species of legal subtlety and chicanery to avoid making restitution. By publicly pleading his cause, as Thucydides says, “he learned his trade by dangers,” and succeeded in recovering some of his paternal estate, though but a small part of that to which he was entitled. He gained, however, confidence and practice as a public speaker, and the fascinating excitement and sense of power which he experienced in these contests emboldened him to become a professional orator and to deal with political matters. We are told that Laomedon of Orchomenus, by the advice of his physicians, used to run long distances as a remedy for a disease of the spleen from which he suffered, until he not only overcame his disorder, but was able to enter for races at the games, and became one of the best long-distance runners of his time. Even so Demosthenes, who was forced by his private misfortunes to make his first appearance as a speaker, gained such skill and power by his success in the law-courts that he soon took the lead among the speakers in the public assembly. Yet when he first addressed the people he was violently coughed down, interrupted and ridiculed, because his speech was found dull and tiresome, being confused in style and strained and artificial in argument. It is said that his voice was weak, and his pronunciation indistinct, and that, as he was frequently obliged to pause for want of breath, it was difficult to follow the meaning of his sentences. At last he left the public assembly and wandered about Peiræus in despair. Here he was met by an old man named Eunomus of Thriasia,126 who reproved him and told him that he did himself great wrong, because, having a manner of speech extremely like that of Perikles, he permitted himself to be disheartened by failure, and did not face the clamour of the rabble boldly, and did not train his body to be strong enough to support the strain of such contests, but allowed himself to fall into a weakly and effeminate condition.

VII. After a second failure, as he was going home overwhelmed with shame hiding his face in his cloak, Satyrus the actor is said to have followed him and joined him. Demosthenes told him with tears in his eyes that although he had taken more pains than any other speaker, and had devoted all his energes to the study of eloquence, yet he could not gain the ear of the people, but that ignorant drunken sailors were listened to when they mounted the tribune, while he was treated with scorn. On hearing this Satyrus answered, “Demosthenes, what you say is very true, but I will soon apply a remedy, if you will recite to me one of the long speeches from the plays of Sophokles or Euripides.” After Demosthenes had recited a speech, Satyrus recited the same speech in turn, and so altered it and gave it so much more grace, by throwing into it the expression which the verses required, that it appeared to Demosthenes to be quite different. Having thus learned how much a speech gains by a really artistic delivery, Demosthenes perceived that it was of but little use for him to study the matter of a speech, unless he also paid attention to the form in which it was to be presented to his audience. He now built for himself an underground study, which remained entire down to the present day, where he daily practised himself in gesture and declamation, and exercised his voice, and where he sometimes spent two or three months at a time with half of his head shaved, so that even if he wished he could not go out of doors.

VIII. He took, however, his themes and subjects for declamation from the various topics of the day, which he learned from those who came to visit him. As soon as they left him he used to return to his study, and repeated aloud in the form of a speech all the news which he had heard, and made comments upon it. He also used to work up any conversations which he heard, into sentences and periods for his orations, and would alter, correct and paraphrase both his own remarks and those of his friends. This gave rise to the opinion that he was not really a man of ability, but that his power and skill as an orator was obtained by laborious study. A great proof of this was thought to be that Demosthenes seldom spoke on the spur of the moment, but often when he was present in the assembly and was called upon by the people to speak, he would remain silent unless he had prepared and meditated over his speech. Many of the other orators ridiculed him for this, and Pytheas in derision said that his arguments smelt of the lamp. To this Demosthenes made the bitter retort, “My lamp, Pytheas, sees very different work from yours.” In conversation with others, however, he did not altogether deny the practice, but said that although he never spoke without having made notes, yet that he often spoke without having written down everything that he was going to say. He used to say that this careful preparation of his speeches showed that he was a true lover of the people, and felt a due reverence for them; while, on the contrary, to speak without caring how the people take one’s words proves a man to be of an overbearing oligarchical disposition, who would use force rather than persuasion. Many writers allege, as a proof that Demosthenes dared not speak on the spur of the moment, that when he attacked Demades he was always immediately answered by him, but that he never so answered Demades.

IX. How then, one might ask, was it that Æschines in his orations speaks of Demosthenes as a man of unbounded impudence? or how was it that when Python of Byzantium was pouring forth a flood of invective against Athens, Demosthenes alone rose and answered him? Moreover, when Lamachus of Mytilene, who had written an encomium upon the Kings of Macedon, Philip and Alexander, which was full of abuse of the Thebans and Olynthians, read his composition in public at the Olympic festival, Demosthenes came up to him and in a fine speech proved from history how great things the Thebans and inhabitants of Chalkidike had done for Greece, and what evils had arisen from the baseness of those who flattered the Macedonians, till the audience were so much wrought upon by his eloquence that Lamachus was forced to flee for his life. The answer to this appears to be that Demosthenes, although he did not copy Perikles in all respects, imitated his reserve and dignity of manner, and his reluctance to speak upon every trivial occasion; and that he was not so much attracted by the credit which he might gain by engaging in these encounters, as he was unwilling rashly to place his power and reputation at the mercy of fortune. Indeed, his spoken orations had more fire and daring than the written ones, if we may trust Eratosthenes, Demetrius of Phalerum, and the comic poets. Eratosthenes tells us that in his speeches he used to rave like a Bacchanal, while Demetrius says that once, as if inspired, he recited the metrical oath: