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

FOOTNOTES:

[1] More properly Mandyria. This battle was fought in August B.C. 338, the same day as that of Chæronea. “Not long before the battle of Chæronea, the Tarentines found themselves so hard pressed the Messapians, that they sent to Sparta, their mother city, to entreat assistance. The Spartan king, Archidamus, son of Agesilaus, perhaps ashamed of the nullity of his country since the Sacred War, complied with their prayer, and sailed at the head of a mercenary force to Italy. How long his operations there lasted we do not know; but they ended by his being defeated and killed, near the time of the battle of Chæronea. B.C. 338.”—Grote, ‘History of Greece,’ part ii. chap, xcvii.

[2] See vol. ii., Life of Lysander, chap. xxx.

[3] See vol. ii., Life of Pyrrhus, chap. xxvi.

[4] See vol. i., Life of Lykurgus, chap, viii.

[5] Cf. note, vol. ii., Life of Lucullus, chap, xxxvi.

[6] Probably the celebrated temple of Poseidon at Tænarus. [Cape Matapan.]

[7] Borysthenes, also called Olbia, Olbiopolis, and Miletopolis, was a town situated at the junction of the Borysthenes and Hypania, near the Euxine sea. It was a colony of Miletus, and was the most important Greek city north of the Euxine.

[8] In Cyprus. Zeno was the founder of the Stoic school of Philosophy.

[9] The allusion is to a saying of Agis II., that “The Lacedæmonians never ask how many their enemies are, but where they are.”

[10] Called Ladokea by Polybius, ii. chap. 3; and Pausanias viii. 44 1.

[11] μόθακες seem to have been children of Helots brought up as foster-brothers of young Spartans, and eventually emancipated, yet without acquiring full civic rights.—Liddell and Scott, s.v.

[12] The ancients always reclined at meals. See the article Triclinium in Smith’s ‘Dictionary of Antiquities.’

[13] The western harbour of Corinth.

[14] Who these Leukaspids were I do not know. White was the Argive colour, and in earlier times men with white shields are always spoken of as Argives. The celebrated Argyraspids, the silver-shielded regiment of Alexander, was destroyed by Antigonus I. after their betrayal of Eumenes; but this may have been a corps raised by Antigonus Doson in imitation of them.

[15] κρυπτεία meant at Sparta a duty or discipline of the young 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 (ἱστορίαι) but Lives (βίοι). 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 Periœki, 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 (βῆμα), 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, ch. 5.)

[29] The history of this Athenian demagogue is in Thucydides, ii. &c. The play of Aristophanes called “The Knights” (Ἱππῆς) 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 δελφῖνας, dolphins, which some critics would change to δελφικάς, 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 9-3/4d. and the sestertius at 2-1/4d. 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 (Λιβύη), 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 (fœdus) 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.)

[43] The war of Numantia was prolonged to their disgrace, as the Romans considered it, and they at last elected Scipio consul B.C. 134, and sent him to Spain. He took Numantia after a siege of fifteen months, and totally destroyed it, B.C. 133, the same year in which his brother-in-law Tiberius Gracchus lost his life. (Velleius Paterc. ii. 4.) Caius Gracchus, the brother of Tiberius, served under Scipio at Numantia, and also Jugurtha, afterwards king of the Numidians, and Caius Marius, the conqueror of Jugurtha.

[44] Plutarch’s account of the Roman public land is brief and not satisfactory. A clearer statement, which differs from Plutarch’s in some respects, is given by Appian. (Civil Wars, i. 7, &c.) The Roman territory (Romanus Ager) was originally confined to a small circuit, as we see from the history of the early wars of Rome. Even Aricia (La Riccia) about fifteen miles south-east of Rome, was a city of the Latin confederation in the reign of Tarquinius Superbus. (Liv. 1, c. 50.) The Romans extended their territory by conquest, and they thus acquired large tracts of land in Italy, which were made the property of the state under the name of Ager Publicus. This public land was enjoyed originally by the patricians, and perhaps by them only, on payment of a certain rent to the treasury (Ærarium). The rents of the public land were a large part of the public income, and intended to defray a portion of the public expenditure. The plebs soon began to lay claim to a share in these lands, and a division of some tracts was made among the plebeians in the reign of Servius Tullius. The lands divided among the plebeians were given to them in ownership. The tracts of public land which were enjoyed by the patricians on the terms above mentioned, were considered, as they, in fact, were, public property; and the interest of the patricians in such lands was called a possession (possessio). Those who enjoyed the public land as a possessio were said to possess it (possidere), and they were called possessores, a term which often occurs in the first six books of Livius, and which Plutarch has attempted to translate by a Greek word (κτηματικοί). It is likely enough that the patricians abused their right to the use of the land by not always paying the rent; as we may collect from the passages in Dionysius (Antiq. Rom. viii. 70, 73, ix. 51, x. 36). Their enjoyment of extensive tracts also prevented the public land from being distributed among the plebeians to the extent that they wished. The disputes between the two orders in the state, the aristocracy or nobles and the plebeians, or, as Livius generally calls them, the patres and the plebs; (the padri and the plebe of Machiavelli, Discorsi, &c.), about the public land, commenced with the agitation of Spurius Cassius, B.C. 486, the history of which is given by Livius in his Second Book (c. 41). The contest was continued at intervals to B.C. 366, when a law was passed which is commonly called one of the Licinian Rogations, which forbade any man to have a possession in the public lands to the amount of more than 500 jugera. This is the law to which Plutarch alludes.

The extent and difficulty of the subject of the public land makes it impossible to examine it fully in a note. I propose to treat of it at length in an appendix in a future volume.

[45] The words in Plutarch literally signify “barbarian prisons,” but I have used the word ergastula, which was the Roman name, though it is a word of Greek origin, and signifies “working-places.” The ergastula were places generally under ground and lighted from above: they were used both as places to work in and as lodging-places for slaves who cultivated the fields in chains. (Plinius, N.H. 18, c. 3; Floras, iii. 19.) They were also places of punishment for refractory slaves. The object of these places of confinement was also to prevent slaves from running away, and rising in insurrection. The slaves were placed at night in separate cells to prevent all communication between them. When the slaves broke out in rebellion in Sicily under Eunus, who is mentioned by Plutarch (Sulla, c. 36), the ergastula were broken open, and a servile army of above sixty thousand men was raised. The Roman master had full power over his slave, who was merely viewed as an animal; and these ergastula, being in the country and out of sight, would give a cruel master full opportunity of exercising his tyranny. They were abolished by the Emperor Hadrian (Spartianus, Hadrianus, 18).

[46] C. Lælius, the father, was an intimate friend of Scipio Africanus the Elder. C. Lælius, the son, the Wise or the Prudent, was also an intimate friend of the younger Africanus. Cicero’s treatise on Friendship is entitled Lælius in honour of Lælius the Prudent.

[47] Tiberius Gracchus was elected Tribune B.C. 133, and he lost his life the same year.

[48] Cicero (Brutus, c. 27) calls the Greek Diophanes a teacher of Tiberius Gracchus. Blossius is mentioned by Cicero (Lælius, c. 11) as one of those who urged Tiberius to his measures of reform. Antipater of Tarsus was a Stoic. The two sons of Cornelia had a learned education and were acquainted with the language and philosophy of the Greeks, and it is probable that the moral and political speculations with which they thus became familiar, and their associating with Greeks, had considerable influence on their political opinions. Tiberius Gracchus the father was also well enough acquainted with Greek to speak the language. His oration to the Rhodians was spoken in Greek.

[49] It does not seem certain what Postumius is intended. Sp. Postumius Albinus Magnus was consul B.C 148, and is supposed by Meyer (Orat. Rom. Fragmenta, 197) to be the orator alluded to by Cicero (Brutus, 25). But this Postumius was too old to be a rival of Gracchus. Another of the same name was consul B.C. 110, and conducted the war against Jugurtha unsuccessfully; but he was perhaps too young to be a rival of Gracchus. (Cicero, Brutus, 34.)

[50] This was P. Licinius Crassus Mucianus Dives, the son of P. Mucius Scævola, and the adopted son of P. Licinius Crassus Dives, as appears from Cicero (Academ. 2, c. 5), who mentions him with his brother P. Scævola as one of the advisers of Tiberius Gracchus in his legislation. Crassus was consul with L. Valerius Flaccus B.C. 131. He was a soldier, a lawyer, and an orator. He lost his life in the war against Aristonikus in the Roman province of Asia B.C. 131. It is remarked that he was the first pontifex maximus who went beyond the limits of Italy, for he was consul and pontifex maximus when he went to carry on the war against Aristonikus. (Livius, Epitome, 59.) The pontifex maximus, as the head of religion, had important duties which required his presence at Rome.

[51] The illustrious family of the Scævolæ produced many orators and jurists. This Scævola was P. Mucius Scævola, the brother of P. Licinius Crassus Mucianus. He was consul B.C. 133, the year in which Tiberius Gracchus attempted his reform. He attained the dignity of pontifex maximus in B.C. 131 on his brother’s death. Scævola was probably a timid man. Cicero states that his brother openly favoured the measures of Tiberius; and Scævola was suspected of doing so. After the death of Tiberius he approved of the conduct of Scipio Nasica, who was the active mover in this affair, and assisted in drawing up several decrees of the Senate in justification of the measure and even in commendation of it. (Cicero Pro Domo, c. 34; Pro Plancio, 36.) He was a great orator, but his chief merit was as a jurist. He was the father of a son still more distinguished as a jurist, Quintus Mucius Scævola, who also became pontifex maximus, and was one of the teachers of Cicero. He is considered to be one of those who laid the foundations of Roman law and formed it into a science (Dig. 1, tit. 2, s. 2). Quintus Mucius Scævola, commonly called the augur, also a distinguished jurist, was a cousin of P. Mucius Scævola, the pontifex, and a teacher of Cicero before Cicero became a hearer of the pontifex.