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

[52] The eloquence of Tiberius Gracchus is commemorated by Cicero (Brutus, c. 27), who had read his orations. He describes them as not sufficiently ornate in expression, but as acute and full of judgment. The specimens of the orations of Tiberius (c. 9. 15) and those in Appian (Civil Wars, 9. 15) fully bear out the opinion of Cicero as to his acuteness. Some German writers assert that these speeches in Plutarch are either fabricated by him or taken from other writers; but assertions like these, which are not founded on evidence, are good for nothing. Plutarch gives the speeches as genuine: at least he believes them to be so, and therefore he did not fabricate them. And it is not likely that any body else did. These two fragments (c. 9. 15) bear no resemblance to the style of most writers who have fabricated speeches. They are in a genuine Roman style. If any man could fabricate them, it was Livius, and Plutarch may have taken them from him.

[53] The same expression occurs in Horace (1 Carm. 1), which there also applies to the Romans, and not to the gods, as some suppose.

[54] Marcus Octavius, who was one of the tribuni plebis B.C. 133, was a descendant of Cneius Octavius, quæstor B.C. 230. Caius Octavius, better known as Caius Julius Cæsar Octavianus and as the Emperor Augustus, was a descendant of Caius the second son of Cneius. Cicero, whose opinion about the Gracchi changed with the changed circumstances of his own life, commends the opposition of Marcus Octavius to the measures of Gracchus. (Brutus, c. 25.) He also says that Octavius was a good speaker.

The institution of the tribuni plebis is one of the most important events in the history of Rome, and the struggle between the plebeians headed by their tribunes, and the nobility, is the development of the constitutional history of Rome. Though there were tribunes in the kingly period, the establishment of the tribuni plebis as the guardians of the plebs is properly referred to the year B.C. 494, when the plebs seceded to the Mons Sacer or the Sacred Mount. On this occasion the patricians consented to the election of two tribunes from the plebs. (Livius, 2, c. 33: compare Livius, 2, 56. 58.) The number was afterwards increased to ten, and this number continued unaltered. Only a plebeian could be elected tribune. The persons of the tribunes were declared to be sacred (sacrosancti). Their powers were originally limited, as above stated, to the protection of the rights of the plebs and of the individuals of the plebeian body against the oppression of the patrician magistrates. It is not possible within the compass of a note to trace the history of the gradual increase of the tribunitian power (tribunitia potestas): such a subject is a large chapter in the history of Rome. Incidental notices often appear in Plutarch’s Lives, which will help a reader to form a general notion of the nature of the magistracy, and the effect which it had on the development of the Roman constitution. The article Tribuni in Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities gives an outline of the functions of the tribuni plebis.

Very soon after the institution of the tribunate, the nobles learned the art of destroying the power of the college of tribunes by gaining over one or more of the members; for, as Plutarch states, the opposition (intercessio) of a single tribune rendered the rest of his colleagues powerless.

[55] As this is the first time that I have used this word, it requires explanation. The origin of the Roman state is a matter involved in great obscurity; but its history after the expulsion of the kings B.C. 509 is the history of a struggle between a class of nobles, an aristocracy, and the people. The old nobility of Rome were the patricians, whom Livius calls indifferently patres (father) and patricii. In his early History patres and plebs are opposed to one another, as we should now oppose the terms nobles or aristocracy, and commonalty or people; not that nobles and aristocracy are among us exactly equivalent, but in the history of Rome there is no distinction between them. Livius frequently uses the term patres and plebs as comprehending all the Roman citizens (ii. 33). The word populus was originally and properly not the people in our sense; it signified the superior and privileged class and was equivalent to patricians. The plebs were originally not a part of the populus. In later times the word populus was often used loosely to express generally the Roman people, and the style and title of the Roman state was Senatus Populusque Romanus—The Senate and the Roman populus, which term populus in the later republic certainly included the plebs, though the plebs is still spoken of as a class. As the plebeians gradually obtained access to the higher honours of the state and to the consulship by a law of Licinius Stolo B.C. 366, a new class of nobles was formed out of those persons who had enjoyed those honours and out of their descendants. This class was called nobiles by the Romans; the word nobilitas denoted the rank or title of the class, but it was also used like our word nobility to express the body of nobiles. Livius uses this term even in the earlier books of his History, but perhaps not with strict correctness, for in some cases at least he makes the term nobility equivalent to the patricians. He wrote in the reign of Augustus, and he has not always applied his terms in the earlier periods with perfect accuracy. Still we may trace the meaning of political terms in the Roman writers with great clearness, for no nation ever stuck more closely to old forms and expressions, and there is a wonderful precision in the use of political terms by Roman writers of all ages and of all classes. The name patricians still existed after the term nobilis was introduced: a noble might be either a patrician or a plebeian, but the distinction was well understood between an old patrician family and a plebeian family, however distinguished the plebeian family might become. Under the Emperors it was not uncommon for them to promote a man to the rank of patrician for eminent services, which under the monarchy was equivalent to the conferring of a title of dignity in modern times, and nothing more. (Tacit. Ann. xi. 25.)

In Cicero we find the aristocratical order often spoken of as the optimates (the class of the best), a term which corresponds to the Greek aristi (ἄριστοι), whence we have the word aristocracy, which, however, the early Greek writers, at least, only used to express a form of government and not a class of persons. Cicero on one occasion (Pro P. Sestio, c. 45) attempts to give to the word optimates a much wider signification; to make it comprehend all good and honest people: but this is a mere piece of rhetoric. When a poor plebeian heard the optimates spoken of, he never imagined that it was intended to place him among them, were he as honest as the best man among the optimates. Cicero also says the populares were those who merely spoke and acted to please the multitude; which shows that populus must now have changed its meaning: the optimates were those who wished to act so as to get the approbation of all honest men.

Plutarch’s perception of the early periods of Roman history was perhaps not strictly exact; but he comprehended very clearly the state of the parties in the age of the Gracchi. On the one side were the nobles and the rich, some of whom were noble and some were not; on the other side were the people, the mass, the poor. The struggle was now between rich and poor, and the rich often became the leaders of the poor for the purpose of political distinction and influence, and hence the name populares. Probably few states have ever presented the spectacle of the striking contrast between wealth and poverty which the Roman state exhibited from the time of the Gracchi; a class of rich, rich by hereditary wealth and by all the modes of acquiring wealth which the possession of office and the farming of the public revenues offered to them; a class of poor who were born poor, who had little industry and few means of exercising it. To this we must add, that though there were many cultivators in the country who might enjoy a moderate subsistence from their small estates, there was a city crowded with poor who had votes, and by their union and numbers mainly determined the elections and the acceptance or rejection of legislative measures. Rome, in fact, was the centre of all political agitation, and the result of a revolution in the city generally determined the dispute between two rival factions. We have still to take into the account a very numerous class of slaves. It is probable that in the earlier periods of Roman history the slaves were comparatively few; in the later republic they became very numerous. They formed a large part of the wealth of the rich, and they were always a dangerous body to the state. The effect of employing slaves generally in agriculture and other occupations was, as it always must be, unfavourable to industry among free men. Slaves, also, were often manumitted, and though the son of a manumitted slave was in all respects on the same footing as a complete Roman citizen, if his father was made such by the act of manumission, yet persons of this condition, and especially those who had been liberated from slavery, were looked upon as a somewhat inferior class. Their connection with the powerful families to which they had belonged, also gave such families great influence in all elections; and as we see in various instances, the class of libertini, manumitted slaves, was viewed as a dangerous body in the state. The equites at Rome can scarcely be called a middle class: they were generally rich and the farmers of the revenues, under the name of publicani. They were often opposed to the senate, but it was an opposition of pure interest, and their wealth made them rather the partisans of the aristocratical than of the popular body. Such were the political elements with which Tiberius Gracchus had to deal, when he attempted a reform which perhaps the times did not render practicable, and for which he certainly did not possess the courage or the judgment or the inflexible resolution which were necessary to secure success. The word in Plutarch which I have here translated nobles is δυνατοί, the powerful. In other places he calls them the rich (πλούσιοι), the possessors [of public land] (κτηματικοί), the aristocratical body (ἀριστοκρατικοί); and perhaps other terms. He calls the plebs, or people as opposed to this class, by various names, of which δῆμος is the most common: he also calls them the multitude (πλῆθος), the many (πολλοί), and other like names.

It is impossible to attain perfect precision in the use of political terms in a translation of Plutarch; and in order to be critically exact, it would be necessary to load these notes continually with remarks. But this critical exactness is not required here: the opposition of the two orders in the state is intelligible to everybody. The contests in Rome from the time of the Gracchi to the establishment of the monarchy under Augustus, were contests in which the rich and the powerful were constantly struggling among themselves for political supremacy; there was an acknowledged aristocratical and an acknowledged popular party. But the leaders of both parties, with perhaps some few exceptions, were mainly bent on personal aggrandisement. The aristocratical class had a clearer object than the leaders of the popular party: they wished to maintain the power of their order and that of the senate, which was the administering body. The leaders of the popular party could have no clear object in view except the destruction of the power of the senate: the notion of giving the people more power than they possessed would have been an absurdity. Accordingly the depression of the aristocratical body had for a necessary consequence the elevation of an individual to power, as in the case of Cæsar the dictator. Sulla, it is true, was an aristocrat, and he destroyed so far as he could the popular party; but he made himself dictator, and to the last day of his life he ruled all parties with a rod of iron.

The existence of a numerous and needy class who participated in political power without having any property which should be a guarantee for their honest use of it, was the stuff out of which grew the revolutions of Rome. There was a crowded city population, clamorous, for cheap bread, for grants of land, for public shows and amusements, averse to labour, constantly called into political activity by the annual elections, always ready to sell their votes to the best bidders; and a class always ready to use this rabble as a tool for their political and personal aggrandisement. Machiavelli observes (Istor. Fiorent. iii.) that the natural enmity which exists between the men of the popular party and the nobles (gli uomini Populari e i Nobili), proceeds from the wish of the nobles to command and of the others not to obey, and that these are the causes of all the evils that appear in states. He adds (iv.) that states, and especially those that are not well constituted, which are administered under the name of republics, often change their government and condition, but the fluctuation is not between liberty and servitude, as many suppose, but between servitude and licence. It is only the name of liberty which is in the mouths of the ministers of licence who are the popular leaders, and the ministers of servitude who are the nobles; both of them wish to be subject neither to the laws nor to men. These remarks, which are peculiarly applicable to Florence and the so-called republics of Italy of that time, apply equally to the Roman state. There are governments, however, to which the name republic can be properly applied, and that of Great Britain is one, which owing to the possession of certain elements have a more stable character. Still the general character of a popular and of an aristocratical party is correctly sketched by Machiavelli.

[56] Plutarch, who is fond of allusions to the Greek poets, here alludes to a passage in the Bacchæ of Euripides, l. 387:

“for e’en in Bacchus’ orgies

She who is chaste will never be corrupted.”

See Bacchæ, ed. Elmsley, 1. 317, 834, and the notes.

[57] The temple of Saturn was now used, among other purposes, as the treasury of the state, the Ærarium.

[58] A dolo is described by Hesychius, v. Δόλωνες, in one sense, as a dagger contained in a wooden case, a kind of sword-stick. (See Facciolati, Lexicon.) Kaltwasser describes it as a walking-stick containing a dagger, and translates the passage, “he provided himself with a robbers’ dagger, without making any secret of it.” I think that he wore it concealed, but made no secret of it, which agrees better with the whole context; and Amyot has translated it so.

[59] The word in Plutarch is water jars, hydriai (ὑδρίαι), the Roman sitellæ, urnæ or orcæ. The sitellæ were a kind of jar with a narrow neck: they were filled with water so that the wooden lots (sortes) would float at the top, and only one could be there at a time. These lots were used for the purpose of determining in what order the tribes or centuries should vote, for the names of the several tribes or centuries were on the several lots. The vessel into which the voters put their votes (tabellæ), when the order of voting had been fixed for the tribes and centuries, was called cista; and it was a basket of wicker-work or something of the kind, of a cylindrical shape. If Plutarch has used the proper word here, the preliminary proceedings were disturbed by the rich seizing or throwing down the vessels, out of which were to be drawn the lots for determining in what order the tribes should vote. The business had not yet got so far as the voting, which consisted in the voters depositing in a cista one of the tablets (tabellæ), which were distributed among them for this purpose, and which were marked with an appropriate letter to express acceptance of a measure or rejection of it. There is a Roman denarius which represents a man going to put a tabella into a cista: the tabella is marked A, which means Absolvo, I acquit. The letter C (Condemno, I condemn) was marked on the tabella of condemnation. (Eckhel, Doctr. Num. Vet. V. 166.) The coin was struck to commemorate the carrying of a law by L. Cassius Longinus B.C. 137, by which the voting in criminal trials (judicia populi) except for perduellio (treason) should be by ballot and not as before by word of mouth.

These remarks are taken from an essay by Wunder (Variæ Lectiones &c. ex Codice Erfurtensi), in which he has established the meaning of sitella and cista respectively to be that which Manutius long ago maintained. He observes that in the Roman comitia one sitella would be sufficient, as it was only used for receiving the names of the tribes or centuries, which were put in for the purpose of determining by drawing them out, in what order the tribes or centuries should vote. And accordingly he says that when comitia are spoken of, we never find urns or sitellæ spoken of in the plural number. But he has not mentioned the passage of Plutarch. It may be difficult to determine if Plutarch considered that the preliminary lot-drawing had been gone through, and the people were voting. If he considered the voting to be going on, he has used the wrong word. With this explanation, I leave the word “voting-urns” in the text, which is not the correct Roman word but may be what Plutarch meant. It seems as if he thought that the voting had commenced.

[60] Plutarch writes it Mallius, for the Greeks never place n before l.

[61] From this it appears that the vote of each tribe counted as one, and the vote of the tribe was determined by the majority of voters in each tribe. It seems to follow that each tribe had a cista to receive its votes. It is said, the practice was to count the votes when all was over; but they must have been counted as each tribe voted, according to this story. The narrative of Appian is the same (Civil Wars, i. 12).

[62] The names of various Roman officers and functionaries were derived from their number, as duumviri (two men), triumviri (three men), decemviri, and so on. Some description was added to the name to denote their functions. There were triumviri agro dando or dividendo, triumviri for the division of public land; duumviri juri dicundo, for administering justice, and so forth.

[63] Appian (Civil Wars, i. 13) calls him Quintus Mummius.

[64] Plutarch and other Greek writers translate the Roman word, cliens, by Pélates (πελάτης). (See Marius, c. 5, notes.)

[65] Plutarch generally uses Attic coins. Nine oboli were a drachma and a half, or about six sestertii. (See c. 2, note.)

[66] See c. 21.

[67] This Attalus III., the last king of Pergamum, left his kingdom to the Romans on his death B.C. 133, the year of the tribunate of Gracchus. His kingdom comprised the best part of that tract out of which the Romans formed the province of Asia. Pergamum was the name of the capital. This rich bequest was disputed by Aristonikus. (See c. 20.)

[68] Perhaps Q. Pompeius Rufus who was consul B.C. 141, and disgraced himself by a treaty with the Numantines and his subsequent behaviour about it. (Cicero, De Officiis, iii. 30; De Finibus, ii. 17; Appian, Iberica, c. 79.)

[69] Quintus Cæcilius Metellus Macedonicus, who was consul B.C. 143. Kaltwasser says, that Plutarch without doubt means Balearicus, the son of Metellus Macedonicus, which son was consul B.C. 123. Without doubt he means the father, who is mentioned by Cicero as an opponent of Tiberius Gracchus, and he states that an oration of his against Gracchus was preserved in the Annals of Fannius. (Brutus, 21.)

[70] Titus Annius Luscus was consul with Q. Fulvius Nobilior B.C. 153. (Cicero, Brutus, c. 20; Livius, Epitome, 58.)

[71] It is clear that Plutarch believed this to be a genuine speech of Tiberius. It is not an argument that he could have made, nor is it likely that it is a fabrication of any professed speech-writer. It is true that there were many speeches extant among the Romans, which, though mere rhetorical essays, were attributed to persons of note and passed off as genuine speeches. But this is either not one of them, or it has been managed with consummate art. The defence of Tiberius is a blot on his character. He could not avoid knowing that his arguments were unsound. To abdicate, which means to resign a Roman magistracy, was a different thing from being deprived of it. The Tribunes were elected at the Comitia Tributa, but they derived their powers by uninterrupted succession from the consecrated act (Lex Sacrata) done on the Holy Mount and confirmed after the overthrow of the Decemviral power. (Livius, 2, c. 33; 3, c. 55.) On this subject, see Bubino, Untersuchungen über Röm. Verfassung, p. 32.

[72] See Caius Gracchus, c. 5. Appian does not mention these measures of Tiberius.

[73] The elections of Tribunes in the time of Cicero were on the 17th of July (Ad Attic. i. 1). According to Dionysius the first Tribunes entered on their office on the 10th of December. Kaltwasser suggests that as it was now the summer season, the country people were busy in their fields and could not come to the election, which thus would be in the hands of the townspeople. If Tiberius was killed in July and entered on his office in the previous December, this will agree with what Cicero says of him, “he reigned a few months.” (Lælius, c. 12.)

[74] A cage, the Roman cavea. This was one of the modes of ascertaining the will of the gods. It was a firm belief among the nations of antiquity that the gods did by certain signs and tokens give men the opportunity of knowing their will. The determination of these signs was reduced to a system, which it was the duty of certain persons, augurs and others, to learn and to transmit. The careful reader will find many other notices of this matter in Plutarch and some in these notes. (See Sulla, c. 6, notes.)

P. Claudius Pulcher, who was consul B.C. 249, and in the command of the Roman fleet off Sicily, despised the omens. The fowls would not eat, which portended that his projected attack on the Carthaginians would be unfavourable; but Claudius said that if they would not eat, they should drink, and he pitched the sacred fowls into the sea. He lost most of his ships in the engagement that followed. (Cicero, De Natura Deorum, ii. 3.) The “birds” of Plutarch are “fowls,” “pulli.”

[75] His name was Fulvius Flaccus; the name of Flaccus belongs to the Fulvii. As he was a friend of Tiberius, it is probable that a Marcus Fulvius Flaccus is meant, who is mentioned in the Life of Caius.

[76] This was P. Mucius Scævola. His colleague L. Calpurnius Piso was conducting the war in Sicily against the slaves who had risen. The Senate, according to Appian (Civil Wars, i. 16), was assembled in the Temple of Fides on the Capitol. The circumstances of the death of Tiberius are told by Appian (Civil Wars, i. 15. 16), who states that there was a fight between the partisans of Tiberius and the other party before the Senate met.

[77] To make Plutarch consistent, we must suppose that Caius had returned to Rome. (See c. 13.)

[78] I can find nothing more about him. This strange punishment was the punishment for parricide.

[79] Cicero (Lælius, c. 11) and Valerius Maximus (4, c. 7) make Lælius ask these questions.

[80] Aristonikus was an illegitimate son of Eumenes II. King of Pergamum. He disputed the will of Attalus III. and seized the kingdom. Publius Licinius Crassus Mucianus Dives, who was sent against him B.C. 131, was unsuccessful, and lost his life; but Aristonikus was defeated by the consul M. Perperna B.C. 130, and taken to Rome, where he was strangled in prison.

[81] This is P. Licinius Crassus Mucianus Dives, c. 9. 20.

[82] This does not appear in the extant Lives which bear the name of Nepos; but what we have under his name is a spurious work of little value except the Life of Atticus.

[83] D. Junius Brutus Gallæcus was consul with P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica Serapio B.C. 138. He completely subdued the Gallæci (people of Galicia) and the Lusitani who occupied a part of modern Portugal, and carried the Roman arms to the western extremity of the Spanish peninsula.

[84] He was the colleague of Brutus B.C. 138, as just stated, and Pontifex Maximus in the year of the death of Tiberius. He must have died soon after going to Asia; for Publius Licinius Crassus Mucianus Dives was Pontifex Maximus B.C. 131 (c. 9); but the remark in the Epitome of Livius (lib. 59) that he was the first Pontifex Maximus who went beyond the limits of Italy is not true. The Pontifex Maximus, who was the chief of the college of Pontifices, was chosen for life. He could not be deprived of his office, nor, it seems, could he give it up. Augustus allowed his old rival Lepidus to keep his dignity of Pontifex Maximus till his death. (Dion Cassius, 49, c. 15.)

[85] The line is from Homer’s Odyssey, i. 47.

[86] This is lost, and also Plutarch’s Life of Scipio Africanus Major.

[87] The word by which Plutarch has translated Forum is Agora (ἀγορά). A Forum was an open place or area, and is often generally used for Public Place, such as almost every town has. The Forum at Rome was the Forum Romanum, which was situated between the Palatine and Capitoline Hills; it was surrounded by buildings and was the chief place for the administration of justice and for the public assemblies. To keep away from the Forum here means to take no share in public affairs. Sometimes, Forensic (forensis), a term comprehending all that relates to public business and the proceedings in the courts, is opposed to Domestic (domesticus), private, as we see in Cicero (Ad Attic. i. 5, &c.).

[88] As thirty-one was the age at which according to a law (Lex Annalis Villia) a man could become Quæstor, Tiberius, who was Quæstor before he was tribune, must have been older than Plutarch says that he was; unless he was elected Quæstor before the legal age.

[89] The island of Sardinia was made a Roman province B.C. 235.

[90] Lucius Aurelius Orestes and M. Æmilius Lepidus were consuls B.C. 126.

[91] This dream is mentioned by Cicero, De Divinatione, i. 26. C. Gracchus told his dream to many persons, before he was elected tribune. It happened while he was a candidate for the quæstorship.

[92] Micipsa, King of Numidia, was the son of Massinissa, who was the firm ally of the Romans in their contest with the Carthaginians in the Second Punic War. At the close of this war, his territory was greatly enlarged by the addition of the dominions of Syphax and a large part of the Carthaginian territory. He was succeeded by Micipsa, who died B.C. 118. The Carthaginian territory which subsequently formed a large part of the Roman province of Africa was a rich corn country, and one of the granaries of Rome under the latter Republic and the Empire.

[93] Gracchus made his defence before the Censors Cn. Servilius Cæpio and L. Cassius Longinus B.C. 124. Gracchus belonged to the class of Equites, and as such he had a Public horse. The censors summoned him to account for leaving his province, and, if he was not able to justify himself, he would be deprived of his horse and marked with the Nota Censoria, in the lists of the Censors, the consequence of which was what the Romans called Ignominia, or temporary civil incapacity.

If Caius was born B.C. 154 and had now (B.C. 124) served twelve years, he entered the army B.C. 136, when he was eighteen. It is true as he here says, that he was only required to serve ten years. This fragment of his speech is preserved by Aulus Gellius (xv. 12), and it is expressed with all the vigour of the best Roman style. A comparison of this fragment with the passages from the speeches of Tiberius Gracchus, which are given by Plutarch, is sufficient to show that Plutarch’s extracts are genuine. There appears to be an error in Plutarch as to the “three years.” Gellius makes Caius say: “Biennium fui in Provincia;” “I was two years in the province:” and one MS. is said to have “two years” (διετία), which Coraes has adopted in his edition of Plutarch.

[94] Fregellæ was a subject city in the territory of the Volsci. The people wished to have the Roman citizenship, and as it was refused they rebelled. Fregellæ was destroyed by L. Opimius the Prætor B.C. 125. Caius Gracchus was tried B.C. 124 before the Prætor Opimius on the charge of conspiring with the people of Fregellæ. (Velleius, 2, c. 6.)

[95] Plutarch simply says the Plain (τὸ πέδιον): but he means the Campus Martius, or Field of Mars. Compare Marius c. 34. The Roman writers often call the Campus Martius simply Campus.

The people did not mount on the house-tops to vote, as Amyot and Kaltwasser say, if I understand them right. Crowds came to Rome, who had no votes; they came to see and to affect the elections if they could. Caius was elected tribune B.C. 123, just ten years after his brother’s tribunate. The consuls were Quintus Cæcilius Metellus Balearicus, a son of Metellus Macedonicus, an opponent of Tiberius Gracchus, and Titus Quinctius Flamininus. (See Tiberius Gracchus, c. 14 notes.)

[96] Cicero, in Brutus, c. 33, and in other passages, bears testimony to the powerful eloquence of Caius Gracchus. Up to the time of Cicero, the orations of Gracchus were the models of oratory which all Romans studied. Cicero says that his speeches did not receive the finishing touch; he left behind him many things which were well begun, but not perfected. The practice of revising speeches for the purpose of publication was common among the Athenian and Roman orators. In manly and vigorous oratory we may doubt if Caius Gracchus ever had his equal among the Romans; and if not among the Romans, where shall we look for his equal?

[97] I have here allowed a word to stand by something of an oversight, to which however there is no objection. Plutarch uses the word “law;” but the Roman word is “Rogatio,” which means a Bill, a proposed Law, so called because the form of passing a law was to ask (rogare) the assembly if they would have it. The form of voting was to reject (antiquare) by the formula A., or to confirm (jubere) by the formula U.R. (Uti Rogas), “as you propose,” which were marked on the tabellæ or voting-tablets. (Cicero, Ad Attic. i. 14.)

To Promulgate a law, or more properly a Rogation, signified among the Romans, to make public (for promulgare is only another form of Provulgare) a proposed law; to give notice of a proposed measure and its contents. To promulgate a law in modern times means to make known a law which is already a law; but the expression is not much used.

[98] P. Popillius Lænas was also consul with P. Rupilius B.C. 132. He returned to Rome after the death of Caius Gracchus.

[99] The erecting of statues to their great men was probably more common at Rome after the conquest of Greece, when they became acquainted with Greek art. Rome at a later period was filled with statues. Though most of the great Romans were distinguished by their military talents, it was not only in respect of military fame that statues were erected; nor were they confined to men as we see in this instance. The daughter of him who conquered Hannibal, the wife of Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, a successful general, a prudent politician and an honest man, the mother of two sons who died in the cause of the people—the memory of such a woman was perpetuated in the manner best suited to the age by an imperishable monument.

[100] A complete view of the legislation of Gracchus is beyond the limits of a note. Part of the subject has been referred to already. (Tiberius Gracchus, c. 8, note.)

The Roman allies (Socii) were subjects of the Roman State, subject to the sovereign power of Rome, a power which was distributed among many members. They bore heavy burdens, particularly in the form of supplies of men and money for war; and they claimed as an indemnification the citizenship (civitas), or admission to the sovereign body, as members of it. The claim was finally settled by the Marsic or Social war. (See Marius and Sulla.)

The law about the price of grain belonged to the class of Laws which the Romans called Frumenteriæ Leges, or Corn Laws; the object of these laws was not to keep up the price of grain, but to furnish it to the poor at a low rate. This low rate however was not effected in the only way in which such an object could profitably be effected, by allowing corn to come to Rome from all parts free of duty, but by buying grain with the Public money and selling it to the poor at a lower rate. This law of Gracchus proposed that corn should be sold to the people (plebs) monthly at the rate of 5/6 of the As for a modius. This is the first recorded instance in Roman History of the poor being relieved in this manner. The city was crowded with poor who had few or no means of subsistence, but had votes in the annual elections and were members of the sovereign body. The consequences of such a measure might be easily foreseen: the treasury became exhausted, and the people were taught to depend for their subsistence, not on their industry, but on these almost gratuitous distributions of grain. This allowance, which was made monthly, added to the sale of their votes at the annual elections and the distributions on extraordinary occasions, of corn and oil (Dion Cassius, 43, c 31) helped a poor Roman to live in idleness. This system of distributions of corn, sometimes free of cost, being once established was continued all through the Republic and under the Empire. It was impossible to stop the evil, when it had been rooted, and in the crowded city of Rome under the Empire, it was an important duty of the adminstration to prevent famine and insurrection by provisioning the city. C. Julius Cæsar reduced the number of those who received this corn relief from 320,000 to 150,000. The number of receivers must have increased again, for Augustus reduced the number to 200,000. This subject of the distribution of corn among the poor is an important element in the history of the later Republic. Dureau de la Malle (Économie Politique des Romains, ii. 307) has compared it with the English mode of providing for the poor by the Poor Laws; but though there are some striking points of resemblance between the two systems, there are many differences, and the matter requires to be handled with more knowledge and judgment than this writer has shown in order to exhibit it in its proper light.

Plutarch’s account of the changes made by Gracchus in the body of the Judices is probably incorrect. The law of Gracchus related to trials for offences, such as bribery at elections (ambitus), and corruption in the administration of offices (repetundæ), which belong to the class of trials called at a later time judicia publica or public trials. In the trials for these offences, those who had to decide on the guilt or innocence of the accused, were called judices; and the judices were taken only from the senators. But as the persons accused of offences, of the kind above mentioned generally belonged to the senatorian order, it was found very difficult to get a man convicted. Some notorious instances of acquittals of persons, who had been guilty of corruption, had occurred just before Gracchus proposed his law. According to Appian, his law gave the judicial power solely to the equites, who formed a kind of middle class between the senators and the people. But the equites were not a safe body to intrust with this power. To this body belonged the publicani, or publicans as they are called in our translation of the Gospels (Matt., ch. v., v. 47), who farmed the revenues in the provinces. A governor who winked at the extortion of the farmers of taxes would easily be acquitted, if he was tried for maladministration on his return to Rome. The equites at Rome had an interest in acquitting a man who favoured their order. Cicero remarks (In Verrem, Act Prima, 13) that the judices were selected out of the equites for near fifty years until the functions were restored to the senate. He is alluding to the change Sulla made B.C. 83; but it appears that there were some intermediate changes. Cicero adds that during all this time there was never the slightest suspicion of any eques taking a bribe in the discharge of his functions as judex. Appian says that they soon became corrupt; and Cicero, who is in the habit of contradicting himself, says in effect the same thing (In Verrem, lib. iii. 41; Brutus, c. 34). The judices of Gracchus condemned Opimius, whose character Cicero admired. (See c. 18, notes.) The condemnation was either honest or dishonest: if honest, Cicero is a dishonest man for complaining of the sentence (Pro Plancio, c. 29): if dishonest then Cicero here contradicts what he has said elsewhere. (See also In Pisonem, c. 39.)

I have used the Roman word judices, which is the word that Plutarch has translated. These judices were selected out of the qualified body by lot (at least this was the rule sometimes) for each particular trial. A judge, generally the prætor, presided, and the guilt or innocence of the accused was determined by the judices by a majority of votes; the votes were given by ballot at this time.

This law of Gracchus about the judicia is a difficult subject, owing to the conflicting evidence.