The Two Great Republics: Rome and the United States
by James Lewis · English · Gutenberg #41202 · 383,146 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Two Great Republics: Rome and the United States
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: The Two Great Republics: Rome and the United States
Author: James Lewis
Release date: October 27, 2012 [eBook #41202]
Most recently updated: October 23, 2024
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/41202
Credits: Produced by Greg Bergquist, Julia Neufeld and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE TWO GREAT REPUBLICS: ROME AND THE UNITED STATES ***
Transcriber's note:
Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).
Small capital text has been replaced with all capitals.
Variations in spelling, punctuation and hyphenation have been retained
except in obvious cases of typographical error.
Page 106: "Another leader, Cleon, a Silician". The transcriber has
replaced "Silician" with "Sicilian".
* * * * *
TWO GREAT REPUBLICS [Illustration: RUINS OF THE ROMAN FORUM]
THE TWO GREAT REPUBLICS
ROME AND THE
UNITED STATES
_By_
JAMES HAMILTON LEWIS
[Illustration]
RAND McNALLY & COMPANY
CHICAGO NEW YORK
_Copyright, 1913_,
BY RAND, MCNALLY & COMPANY
The Rand-McNally Press
_Chicago_
PREFACE
In this book I have proposed to compare conditions recorded in Roman
history with those existing in America that should warn, by reason of
the results at Rome. It is not the purpose of this volume to offer a
mere textbook or a scholastic essay on historical events. It is not
the purpose merely to record those events which led to the destruction
of the Roman republic, and with this end our work. The main purpose of
this book is to compare events as they transpired in the one republic
and in the other.
The political history of the Roman republic is throughout its whole
course a continuous contest between radicals and conservatives. The
striking resemblances between the basis of the political controversies
of Ancient Rome and the modern political and economic problems render
it almost impossible for any historian to approach the political
history of Rome entirely free from prejudice. The bias of the
historian, whether toward the liberal or the conservative side in
politics, is sure to affect to a greater or less degree the pictures
which he paints of the events and actors in Roman history. To indicate
to some extent these varying views, and to present to the reader some
of the ideas of prominent writers on Roman history, a number of
extracts from the works of other authors have been inserted, as
occasion demanded, in this work. In the majority of cases such an
insertion should be understood as an attempt to present all sides of
some controverted historical question rather than as indicating the
approval by the author of the views expressed therein.
In arranging the perspective of this book, its main object has been
kept constantly in mind. The importance of events has been weighed
from the standpoint of their effect upon the decay and collapse of the
free political institutions of Rome; with the result that many
subjects, to which considerable space would be devoted in a general
Roman history, have been passed over with a mere notice, while other
events, perhaps of less popular interest, have been treated at length.
I would be false to the first sense of justice did I not here
acknowledge the aid I have obtained from Professor Albert H. Putney,
dean of the Webster College of Law, Chicago, and a lawyer of the state
of Illinois at the city of Chicago (my home), who has been the
principal contributor from whom I have received assistance, and much
that can be found in this book in the nature of real historical data,
and of the philosophy of reasoning from this data, is due to him, and
I desire to acknowledge my indebtedness and to give full credit for
the value of this work.
JAMES HAMILTON LEWIS
_United States Senate Chamber, Washington, D. C.
September 1913._
CONTENTS
PAGE
_Preface_ 5
CHAP.
I. THE TWO REPUBLICS 9
II. ROMAN LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLIES 15
III. THE FIRST GREAT MELTING POT 28
IV. THE EARLY REPUBLIC 35
V. THE PERIOD OF FOREIGN CONQUEST 71
VI. THE TRIBES, THE COLONIES, AND THE
PROVINCES 89
VII. THE CRISIS--THE ATTEMPTED REFORMS
OF THE GRACCHI 100
VIII. MARIUS AND SULLA 168
IX. POMPEY 218
X. CICERO AND CATILINE 228
XI. JULIUS CÆSAR 238
XII. POST-MORTEM 271
XIII. THE COMPARISON 286
THE TWO GREAT REPUBLICS
ROME
AND
THE UNITED STATES
CHAPTER I
THE TWO REPUBLICS
"How like, how unlike, as we view them together."--_Holmes._
It is now nearly two thousand years since the curtain fell upon the
last act in the history of the Roman republic. During these twenty
centuries many other republics have flourished and passed away, while,
in turn, new republics have arisen to take the place of the earlier
ones; but no other fallen republic in the whole course of history has
attained to the same degree of importance, has possessed the same
degree of interest, or has exerted the same influence on the history
of the world, as did that of Rome. The five centuries of republican
institutions on the banks of the Tiber still remain the richest
quarry to which the student or historian of republican governments is
able to resort for his material.
"History," says Lord Macaulay, "is philosophy teaching by examples."
The most practical value of the study of history arises from the aid
which it can give us in understanding the present and in forecasting
the future. Bolingbroke, on the "Uses of History," commands its study
as a protection against the unexpected. The main purpose of any
American, who to-day studies the history of the greatest republic of
the ancient world, should be to discover whether or not the story of
the rise and fall of that government teaches any lessons which might
be of value to the American of to-day; whether the evils which were
the causes of the overthrow of the Roman republic find any counterpart
in the problems which agitate our own country.
One of the greatest of American orators, in urging Americans to draw
their historical lessons from the history of their own country, says
that "when we go back into ancient history, we are bewildered by the
differences of manners and institutions"; but sometimes it is with
the earliest of nations that the most striking comparisons may be
made, and from their history that the greatest lessons may be learned.
The truth is that the progress of mankind, during that small fragment
of the period of its existence upon this earth which we are permitted
to see by the light of history, has been very uneven in the extent of
its advances along the different lines of human progress. In the
fields of scientific discovery and of material results human
achievements, especially during the past century, have reached almost
into the realm of the marvelous; but in many other fields--those
relating to human reason, to knowledge of the human mind, to the
relation between man and man, and to the science of government--human
progress has been so slight that man's efforts in these directions
must still receive the verdict of failure.
The reason for this great discrepancy is perhaps not difficult to
discover. It is easy for the mass of mankind to accept and receive the
benefits which come to them from the struggles and mental efforts of
the few intellectual giants whom the human race from time to time
produces; but all this takes place with very little change in the
minds or emotions of the mass of humanity.
As, for example, the pages of Homer are studied, it is hard to say
whether the strongest impression left upon the mind of the reader is
that of the vast difference between the external life of that period
and of the twentieth century, or that of the striking similarity
between the qualities and emotions of the characters in these epics
and of the men and women of to-day.
In the field of the material world any comparison between the existing
conditions in the United States to-day and the conditions in any
ancient country could hardly be of any particular value; except,
perhaps, to indicate the great distance which has been traveled. In
the field of government and politics, however, the most valuable
comparison which it is possible to make with existing conditions in
the United States is not with the present conditions in any modern
country, nor is it with conditions of an earlier age in any
Anglo-Saxon or even Teutonic country. The greatest resemblance to the
existing conditions in the United States, both as to the character of
her politics and the nature of the problems which confront her, is to
be found in the great Roman republic of two thousand years ago.
In studying the decline and fall of the Roman republic it will appear
that this result was most directly brought about by the three
following causes:
1. Long before the time when Rome had attained to the height of her
power, great inequalities of wealth had arisen between the different
strata of the Roman citizens; the prosperity which came to Rome as a
result of her conquests was not distributed among her whole citizen
body. Indeed, while the wealth of the community as a whole was rapidly
increasing, the wealth of the great mass of the citizens was rapidly
decreasing, not only relatively but even absolutely. The acute stage
of the contest between the rich and the poor arose immediately after
the conclusion of the long contest between patricians and plebeians,
and at the time when, theoretically, all political distinctions and
privileges between citizens had disappeared. Yet, in fact, the
suffrage was then limited to the free citizen--the smallest class of
the humble or toiling numbers.
2. The influence of a large and constantly increasing class of
demagogues, possessed of knowledge of human nature and endowed with
skill in the management of men, yet entirely lacking in principle,
patriotism, or any sense of public obligation. These wrought upon a
mob of unqualified and reckless voters, who had nothing to lose and
were more anxious for immediate personal benefit than for the gradual
but permanent amelioration of the hardships of the class to which they
belonged.
3. The absence of any system of representative organization in the
Roman government.
The first two of these evils are to be found in the American republic
of to-day as well as in the Roman republic of the past; the last of
the three was a disadvantage suffered by Rome but outgrown by the
modern republics. This last evil will be treated by itself in the
succeeding chapter, while the two former will be shown in the
remainder of the volume as the political history of Rome is outlined.
CHAPTER II
ROMAN LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLIES
In one important respect in the management of their political affairs,
the citizens of the Roman republic occupied a most disadvantageous
position in comparison with the citizens of any modern republic. The
greatest defect in the political organization of Rome, as of all other
ancient republics, lay in the utter absence of representative
legislative assemblies. The want of such institutions, in the absence
of all the other causes of disruption, might of itself have been
sufficient to have caused the downfall of the Roman republic.
The invention and development of such representative assemblies has
been the greatest contribution which the Anglo-Saxon race has made to
the political progress of the world. It is largely the existence of
such bodies which renders practical the continued existence of modern
republics, with jurisdiction over extended areas.
The Roman legislative bodies were, throughout the whole period of
Roman history, popular assemblies,--bodies of a character well
adapted for the government of the community when Rome was a mere
city-republic on the Tiber, but entirely inadequate to meet existing
conditions when the Roman territories had been extended far beyond the
confines of Latium and even beyond the shores of the Italian
peninsula.
The system of Roman popular assemblies was so complicated, and these
assemblies were so closely connected with every phase and every
important epoch in Roman political history, that it seems advisable to
stop at the outset and give a brief description of each of these
assemblies; of the manner in which they were constituted; of their
origin; and of the scope of their respective powers.
The oldest of these popular assemblies was the _comitia curiata_,
which for a considerable period was the only body in Rome with the
power to enact laws. This assembly was based upon the original
division of the people into _gentes_ and _curiæ_, and was throughout
its history a distinctively patrician body. The force of the contest
for a share in political power, waged by the plebeians, took in the
main the direction of stripping the comitia curiata of its power
instead of securing for the plebeians the right of membership in this
assembly.
After the creation of the _comitia centuriata_ the powers of the older
comitia rapidly declined, and were in the main limited to the control
of certain portions of the state religion; particularly those
religious formalities connected with elections, legislation, or the
investure of military leaders with the _imperium_. At a still later
time, the comitia curiata ceased to meet at all, and was merely
considered as being represented by the lictors.
The two important assemblies of the people during the period of the
history of the Roman republic were the comitia centuriata and the
_comitia tributa_. The comitia centuriata came into existence during
the period which lies on the border line between mythology and
history. In the legendary history of the Roman kingdom the creation of
this assembly is given as one of the reforms of Servius Tullius.
However this may be, it was undoubtedly in existence (although not in
the exact form which it later acquired) as early as the sixth century
before Christ. This assembly was reorganized some time before the
Punic Wars. In its final form the tribal division was taken as the
primary division of the people; each tribe was divided into five
classes, according to the wealth of the citizens, and each class into
two centuries, one century in each class consisting of _seniores_, or
men above forty-five years of age, and one consisting of _juniores_,
or men between the ages of eighteen and forty-five. The ten centuries
from each of the tribes made a total of three hundred fifty centuries,
to whom were added eighteen centuries of knights, making a total of
three hundred sixty-eight centuries. Every question submitted to the
comitia centuriata was decided by the vote of a majority of centuries.
Although all freemen had the right to vote in this assembly, the power
of the richer classes was disproportionately great. This was secured
by assigning to the five classes, into which each tribe was divided, a
very disproportionate number of citizens. The first class, to which
only the richest citizens were admitted, was very small in size, while
the fifth (and lowest) class was probably more numerous than the other
four classes combined.
The comitia centuriata was originally an assembly of the Roman
citizens in the form of an army, and the divisions into classes was
based upon the kind of equipment with which each soldier was able to
provide himself. The eighteen centuries of knights represented the
cavalry of the army. These centuries of knights possessed the right of
having their votes taken first, which constituted another advantage
for the wealthy classes. In 241 B.C. the knights were deprived of
their right of voting first, but this privilege was given to the
centuries of the first rank, assigned by lot.
The comitia tributa, or assembly of the tribes, first met in 489 B.C.,
it being convened by the Senate at that time to sit in judgment upon a
patrician, Coriolanus, the responsibility for whose fate the Senate
desired to throw upon the plebeians. This assembly was originally a
strictly plebeian body, and its original authority was limited to the
administration of the business of the plebeian order. The class
character of the comitia tributa is indicated by its original
name--_concilium tributum plebis_, the word _concilium_ indicating a
conference of a certain part of the people rather than a legislative
assembly of the whole people.
It would be hard to say whether it was the increased power of the
tribunes which developed the authority of the comitia tributa, or
whether it was the increased power of the comitia tributa which first
gave to the tribunes the vast power which they were ultimately able to
exercise in Rome. However this may be, the fact is evident that the
power of the comitia tributa and of the tribunes rose together. At a
later date, membership in the comitia tributa was not limited to the
plebeians, but the influence of the patricians in this assembly was
always inconsiderable and they generally absented themselves from its
meetings. Although the wealthy classes had no predominating influence
in the comitia tributa, its decision upon any question was far from
being, necessarily, the decision of the majority. Measures submitted
to the comitia tributa were carried or defeated by the vote of the
majority of the tribes, and the numbers enrolled in each tribe were
very unequal, all the inhabitants of the city of Rome being enrolled
into four tribes, and a very disproportionate power being thus given
to the rural voters.
The meetings of the comitia tributa were generally presided over by a
tribune, although sometimes by one of the consuls. At first the laws
passed by the comitia tributa were required to be confirmed by a vote
of the comitia centuriata, but this requirement was abolished in 339
B.C. by the Publilian and Horatian laws. The provisions of these laws
were reaffirmed by the Hortensian laws in 286 B.C.; and it is certain
that at least from this date the full validity of a law passed by the
comitia tributa was never questioned.
In the comitia centuriata and the comitia tributa we see the anomalous
condition of two independent law-making assemblies; and as there was
no division between them of the field of legislation, it is hard to
see how, even with the controlling influence of the Senate, conflicts
between the two were so generally avoided. So completely were the two
comitiæ on an equality as to the validity of the laws enacted by each
that the records generally fail to show by which assembly any
particular law was passed, but this can generally be ascertained by
looking at the name of the proposer of the law. If a tribune appears
as the proposer of the law it was passed by the comitia tributa; but
if the proposer was a consul, prætor, or dictator, the law was the
work of the comitia centuriata.
The powers of the two comitiæ as to the election of officers were
differentiated. The comitia centuriata, at all stages in the history
of the Roman republic, possessed the right of electing the highest
officers of the republic--the consuls, prætors, and censors. The
comitia tributa originally possessed the right of electing only the
tribunes and the plebeian ædiles; at a later period they elected also
the curule ædiles, the quæstors, the majority of the legionary
tribunes, and all the inferior officers of state. The comitia tributa,
in the later days of the republic, secured an indirect control over
the election of the higher officers also, since the adoption of the
legal principle that all Romans who sought the highest honors of the
state must pass through a regular gradation of offices rendered it
necessary for the comitia centuriata to choose as consuls and prætors
men who had previously been chosen by the comitia tributa as quæstors
and ædiles. It must be remembered, however, that the law relative to
the order in which the various offices must be held was of a
directory rather than a mandatory character; while in the main obeyed,
it was, nevertheless, frequently violated.
The various public offices here referred to will be discussed in the
later chapters as each office first comes into existence in Roman
history. It remains at this time to speak of the organization, powers,
and authority of the Roman Senate, particularly as to its control over
the work of the popular assemblies.
The extent of the power of the Senate over legislation varied greatly
in different periods of Roman history, and these differences were
caused more by the existing political conditions, and by the relative
strength of the aristocratic and popular parties in Rome, than by any
express changes by legislation.
At the very outset of Roman history we see the Senate existing as an
aristocratic body, embodying in itself both the oligarchical
principles upon which the Roman government was based, and also the
patriarchal basis upon which the Roman family organization and later
the organization of the Roman state itself had been built.
Originally, each of the three Roman tribes was divided into ten
gentes, each gens into ten curiæ, and each curia, besides constituting
one of the units in the comitia curiata, furnished one member of the
Roman Senate. The Senate continued after the organization by curiæ had
become obsolete. Membership in the Senate was at all periods for life,
but did not descend from father to son. Vacancies in the Senate were
filled by appointment, these appointments being made first by the
kings, later by the consuls, and finally by the censors. As the
censors were chosen only once in five years, vacancies in the Senate
were filled only at such intervals. The aristocratic party in Rome, by
keeping control of the office of censor, was able to perpetuate their
majority in the Senate. In filling such vacancies, preference was
given to those who had held some of the higher offices during the
preceding five-year-period. Many members of the Senate had held the
office of consul; many more hoped to hold it in the future. All
members of the Senate, with few exceptions, had held some civic
office, and were men of property and of mature age.
All the dignity of Rome and of the Roman government centered in the
Roman Senate. The minister of Pyrrhus described this body as "an
assembly of kings," and it might well have aroused the surprise and
admiration of a foreign ambassador, as nowhere else in the world at
that time was it possible to find such an assembly, either from the
standpoint of the character of the body itself or of the
qualifications of its members.
At an early period no law could be presented before the comitia
centuriata or the comitia tributa without having been previously
approved by the Senate, and after the passage of the act, either by
the comitia centuriata or the comitia tributa, it must be promulgated
by the Senate before it went into effect. The Senate, therefore, was
never possessed of a direct general power of legislation, but had in
the fullest degree both the power of initiating legislation and of
vetoing it. At a later period the control of the Senate over
legislation became theoretically less, but practically greater.
By the Publilian Law (339 B.C.) the control of the Senate over the
comitia centuriata was reduced to a mere formality. By this time,
however, the officers of the state, the tribunes as well as the
consuls, had fallen completely under the control of the Senate, while
the comitia tributa, in turn, fell more and more under the control of
the consuls and tribunes respectively. During the latter period of the
republic the Senate practically legislated, and gave the bill to one
of the tribunes (the tribunes were at this time far more completely
under the control of the Senate than were the consuls) to secure the
mere formality of its passage by the comitia tributa.
The management of foreign affairs was at all times exclusively in the
hands of the Senate, except that the question of declaring war or
concluding peace must be submitted to the vote of the people in one of
the popular assemblies. The Senate also regulated the religious
affairs of the Roman state (after this power fell from the hands of
the comitia curiata); assigned consuls and prætors their provinces of
administration and command; fixed the amount of troops to be raised
both from the Roman citizens and from the Italian allies; sent and
received ambassadors; controlled the calendar, adding to or taking
away from a year so as to lengthen the term of a favorite official or
to shorten the term of an unpopular one; decreed or refused triumphs
to Roman generals, and possessed a general control over the financial
affairs of the state.
CHAPTER III
THE FIRST GREAT MELTING POT
The variety of things which are able to serve as a basis for human
vanity are almost unlimited. This holds true as well in the case of
national vanity as in the case of the vanity of the individual. The
most backward and least attractive of human races generally consider
themselves superior to the rest of mankind, and too often on account
of the peculiarities which, in the minds of others, are the most
convincing proofs of their inferiority. Even among the more advanced
races of mankind great pride is often manifested in attributes which,
properly viewed, are rather a disgrace, or at least a detriment to the
race.
Few things in the world are held in greater respect, by the great
masses of men, than a long line of ancestry of unmixed blood. It seems
to be generally felt that the purity of any race, that is, its freedom
from interbreeding with outsiders, is a matter of credit. The lesson
of history, however, shows that purity of blood in any nation is an
evidence of, or perhaps rather cause of, degeneracy and decay, and
that the great nations of history have been the cosmopolitan races,
the races of mixed descent and hybrid ancestry. If it be thought that
the Jewish people are an exception to this, let it be recalled that
the Jews are a mixed people, originally of many conflicting tribes,
and later continually mixed with other races.
In the pages of ancient history Rome stands out as the first great
cosmopolitan race, or at least the first mixed race, in the creation
of which we are able to watch the melting pot in full operation.
Three thousand years ago the Italian peninsula presented a veritable
medley of races. In the south and along the eastern coast were found
the cities and colonies founded by the two streams of immigration from
the neighboring peninsula across the Adriatic--the Pelasgian and the
Greek. In the center of Italy were to be found the various branches of
the Oscan, Umbrian, and Sabellian races. Farther to the north was the
country of the Latins. Etruscans and Gauls dwelt between Latium and
the Alps. It was only at a much later time that Cisalpine Gaul began
to be considered a part of Italy.
In its earliest days Rome, while possessing many features in common
with the other Italian cities, presented at the same time many
differences.
"The unfavorable character of the site renders it hard to
understand how the city could so early attain its prominent
position in Latium. The soil is unfavorable to the growth of
fig or vine, and in addition to the want of good
water-springs, swamps are caused by the frequent inundations
of the Tiber. Moreover, it was confined in all land
directions by powerful cities. But all these disadvantages
were more than compensated by the unfettered command it had
of both banks of the Tiber down to the mouth of the river.
The fact that the clan of the Romilii was settled on the
right bank from time immemorial, and that there lay the
grove of the creative goddess Dea Dia, and the primitive
seat of the Arval festival and Arval brotherhood, proves
that the original territory of Rome comprehended Janiculum
and Ostia, which afterwards fell into the hands of the
Etruscans. Not only did this position on both banks of the
Tiber place in Rome's hands all the traffic of Latium, but,
as the Tiber was the natural barrier against northern
invaders, Rome became the maritime frontier fortress of
Latium. Again, the situation acted in two ways: Firstly, it
brought Rome into commercial relations with the outer world,
cemented her alliance with Cære, and taught her the
importance of building bridges. Secondly, it caused the
Roman canton to become united in the city itself far earlier
than was the case with other Latin communities. And thus,
though Latium was a strictly agricultural country, Rome was
a center of commerce; and this commercial position stamped
its peculiar mark on the Roman character, distinguishing
them from the rest of the Latins and Italians, as the
citizen is distinguished from the rustic. Not, indeed, that
the Roman neglected his farm, or ceased to regard it as his
home; but the unwholesome air of the Campagna tended to make
him withdraw to the more healthful city hills; and from
early times by the side of the Roman farmer arose a
non-agricultural population, composed partly of foreigners
and partly of natives, which tended to develop urban life."
(Mommsen's _History of Rome_.)
It was, therefore, as a cosmopolitan, commercial city that the Romans
first came into prominence. The early population was composed of mixed
Etruscan and Latin stock, to which representatives of every Italian
tribe and of the Greeks were soon added. By the beginning of the truly
historical times the Romans had become merged into one race,
representing the combined product of the races of Italy. It was this
fact, very largely, which contributed to her success over the purer
(ethnologically) races which surrounded her.
There were two great divisions of the melting-pot process at Rome; the
first, that existing during the days of the kingdom and of the early
republic; the second, that of the later republic and the empire.
During the first period the process of intermixture, as has been said,
was between the different races of Italy; within the second period
Rome became the center of the civilized world, and her population
included representatives of all the known races of mankind.
In no other despotism in the history of the world is there to be found
so little racial or class distinction as in the Roman empire. Such
distinctions were never able to exist at Rome during any portion of
her history. The permanent privileged classes were those possessed of
wealth, or of military power, and the descendants of both the
conquerors and the conquered of one epoch would be found in the next
indiscriminately divided among the exploiters and the exploited of the
times.
The patricians, the descendants of the early settlers of Rome, were
unable to maintain their special caste privileges, and were compelled
to admit the plebeians to equal political rights and privileges. Class
distinction remained in as marked a degree as ever at Rome, but the
distinction was now between rich and poor, and the rich plebeian took
equal rank with the rich patrician. Nor were the united Roman orders
strong enough to preserve a monopoly of political privileges for
Romans when the territory of Rome was extended over the Italian
peninsula. It was found necessary to extend the franchise first to the
residents of Latium and later to those of the other portions of Italy.
More remarkable still were the conditions which we find after the
establishment of the empire and the extension of Roman territory
around the shores of the Mediterranean Sea. There were no royal house,
no hereditary nobility, and few special privileges left for the
inhabitants of Rome. The distinctions between rich and poor were never
more galling; _but_ high birth conferred no great advantage, and the
lowest born could rise to the highest posts of honor. The ponderous
weight of the empire ground out racial and caste distinctions and
welded together all the heterogeneous mass. The provinces became
Romanized, and the population of Rome became a mixture of all the
races of the provinces. Of how little importance Rome was to the
later empire is shown by the removal of the seat of the empire by
Constantine to Constantinople, and the continued existence of an
empire calling itself Roman for more than a thousand years after Rome
had ceased to constitute a part of such empire.
CHAPTER IV
THE EARLY REPUBLIC
The first epoch of the Roman republic is that extending from the
overthrow of the kings, about 509 B.C., to the passage of the Licinian
Laws in 367 B.C. The history of this century and a half at Rome is
primarily the history of internal strife and class antagonisms. During
these early days the progress made by the republic toward the
expansion of its territories or the extension of its foreign influence
was inappreciable.
Rome, during these days, was contending on a position of near equality
with the neighboring cities of Latium and Etruria. Twice during this
period the independence, perhaps the very existence, of the city was
seriously threatened.
The war against the Etruscans, which followed immediately upon the
expulsion of the last of the Tarquin kings, resulted so unfavorably to
Rome that not only was her territory considerably reduced in size but
even the subjugation of Rome itself might probably have been
accomplished but for the forbearance of her victorious opponents.
Later, in 390 B.C., the capture and sack of Rome by the Gauls nearly
proved the death-blow of the Roman republic. The internal dissensions
of this period were mainly responsible for the lack of military
success. Although it is true that the history of early Rome, unlike
the histories of the various early Grecian states, records few
instances where hatred or bitterness arising from political defeat
induced a citizen to turn traitor to his country, and although the
approach of a foreign foe was generally sufficient to bring about a
truce in Roman political hostilities and the union of all factions in
the city against the common national enemy, still it must be
remembered that the amount of energy possessed by a community is
limited. When the all-absorbing questions agitating a people are those
relative to internal political contests, the energies of the ablest
men of each generation are spent mainly in political contests instead
of being exerted for the common welfare of the community.
The influence which the internal dissensions at Rome must have
exerted on her military success is shown by a comparison of the
military history of the Roman republic prior to 367 B.C. with the
wonderful career of conquest which the Roman republic entered into
immediately after the passage of the Licinian Act. This act, although
producing a partial and temporary cessation of class contests at Rome,
nevertheless sufficiently healed the internal wounds of the state to
enable it to rapidly advance from a city-republic to a world power.
"The results of this great change were singularly happy and
glorious. Two centuries of prosperity, harmony, and victory
followed the reconciliation of the orders. Men who
remembered Rome engaged in waging petty wars almost within
sight of the Capitol lived to see her the mistress of Italy.
While the disabilities of the plebeians continued, she was
scarcely able to maintain her ground against the Volscians
and Hernicans. When those disabilities were removed, she
rapidly became more than a match for Carthage and Macedon."
(Macaulay.)
The republic created at Rome in the course of the sixth century before
Christ was distinctively an undemocratic republic. The benefits to the
plebeians resulting from the overthrow of the kingdom were of slight,
if any importance. The political power of the state remained almost
entirely in the hands of the patricians, and the right to hold office
was restricted to the members of this caste. At this time the members
of the patrician order were perhaps not very much inferior in numbers
to the plebeian order; but the discrepancy between the numbers of the
two orders so rapidly increased that by the beginning of the fourth
century before Christ the government of Rome had become practically
that of an oligarchy.
In the latter days of the republic, in the contest which resulted in
the overthrow of the republic, the basic reasons for the struggle were
of an economic rather than a political character. In the period now
under discussion the political element predominated in the class
contests, although various elements of disagreement were to be found
existing side by side.
"Three distinct movements agitated the community. The first
proceeded from the body of full citizens, and was confined
to it; its object was to limit and lessen the life-power of
the single president or king; in all such movements at Rome,
from the time of the Tarquins to that of the Gracchi, there
was no attempt to assert the rights of the individual at the
expense of the state, nor to limit the power of the state,
but only that of its magistrates. The second was the demand
for equality of political privileges, and was the cause of
bitter struggles between the full burgesses and those,
whether plebeians, freedmen, Latins, or Italians, who keenly
resented their political inequality. The third movement was
an equally prolific source of trouble in Roman history; it
arose from the embittered relations between landholders and
those who had either lost possession of their farms, or, as
was the case with many small farmers, held possession at the
mercy of the capitalist or landlord. These three movements
must be clearly grasped, as upon them hinges the internal
history of Rome. Although often intertwined and confused
with one another, they were, nevertheless, essentially and
fundamentally distinct. The natural outcome of the first was
the abolition of the monarchy--a result which we find
everywhere, alike in Greek and Italian states, and which
seems to have been a certain evolution of the form of
constitution peculiar to both peoples." (Mommsen.)
The overthrow of the monarchy was accomplished quickly and
effectively. Unlike the case in most countries, the monarchy once
overthrown, there was no attempt for nearly five centuries to
reëstablish it. The word "king" was regarded with such hatred that the
mere accusation made against any public leader that he was seeking to
make himself king was generally sufficient to utterly destroy his
influence, even when such charges were unfounded and unsupported by
evidence.
The men who established the new form of government created after the
expulsion of Tarquinius adopted the theory of political checks and
balances which we afterwards find exerting such a strong influence
upon the framers of our American Constitution. It was necessary that
at least a part of the powers formerly exercised by the king should be
intrusted to some official under the new régime. The greatest efforts,
however, were made to render it impossible for any Roman official to
use the governmental powers granted him in such a manner as to secure
for himself the kingly office. The mere provision that the highest
official in the government should be elected, rather than succeed to
the office by right of descent, was rightly judged to be by itself an
insufficient protection against the seizure of supreme power by some
Roman tyrant.
A stronger safeguard was found in the division of the highest power in
the state between two officials, who later came to be known as
consuls. (The officers afterwards known as consuls were for a
considerable period known as prætors; after the term consul came into
use the name prætor at a still later period was given to the possessor
of a new office created shortly after the passage of the Licinian
Act.) The kingly power, or that part of it not absolutely abolished or
given to the religious officials, was vested jointly in the two
consuls, each possessing the full right to exercise all the functions
of the office. Under this division of power each consul was considered
a most effective check upon any ambition for a crown which might be
possessed by the other.
Another safeguard, a safeguard which unfortunately has recently been
too much disregarded in the United States, consisted in the short term
of office prescribed by the new law, the consuls and other Roman
officials being elected for a term of one year only.
While, as has been said, the consuls retained in general all the
former powers of the king, still in some respects these powers were
curtailed:
1. By the Valerian Law of 509 B.C. each person condemned by the consul
to capital or corporal punishment was entitled to an appeal as a
matter of right. It had previously been optional with the king whether
to grant an appeal.
2. The consuls never possessed the various pecuniary rights of the
kings, such as that of having the fields cultivated by the citizens.
3. The quæstors, who had previously been appointed or not by the king
himself, as he saw fit, now became regular state officials.
4. The religious duties and powers of the king did not pass to the
consul. The highest religious officer of the state, the _pontifex
maximus_, was from this time on elected by the Pontifical College. The
various colleges of priests (all of whom had formerly been appointed
by the king) now filled up vacancies in their own numbers. Other
religious officers were appointed by the pontifex maximus. On account
of the close connection between the Roman religion and the Roman
government, the pontifex maximus became a strong political power in
the city. By the power of this officer and his associates to hold the
auspices and regulate the calendar, they were enabled to prevent or
permit the holding of the public assemblies, extend or decrease the
term of office of public officials, and exercise a greater or less
influence on almost every public question or proceeding.
5. The insignia and marks of dignity permitted to the consul were of a
less imposing character than those previously granted to the king.
While the king had been accompanied by twenty-four lictors, the consul
was permitted only twelve, and the axes were taken away. While the
king had worn the purple robe, the consul wore merely the ordinary
Roman toga with a purple border. The royal chariot of the king did not
descend to the consul, who was obliged to travel on foot within the
limits of the city.
6. There had been no provision in the Roman law for any redress for a
wrong done by the king, but the consul, upon the termination of his
year of office, stepped down at once into the mass of the citizens and
could at any time be punished for any malfeasance during his official
life.
7. An indirect restriction of the powers of the consuls arose from the
increased dignity and authority of the Senate. The change in this
respect, however, was practical rather than theoretical. According to
the strict form of the law the Senate still bore the same relation to
the consuls that they had previously borne to the king. The Senate was
still nothing more than an advisory body, and all vacancies among the
senators were filled by appointments made by the consuls. The
increased importance of the Senate arose out of the advantage which an
official holding office for life always possesses over a superior
officer holding office for only a brief term. In the present day it
frequently happens that a political appointee at the head of a
department or bureau, with the workings of which he is not familiar,
finds himself compelled to rely almost implicitly upon some
subordinate official whose working life has been spent in that office.
The short term of a consul and the life term of the members of the
Senate thus tended to secure to this body an ever increasing
influence. It was seldom that any serious conflict arose between the
consul and the Senate. The consuls were men who were already senators
or who expected to become such, while of the senators, many had held
the office of consul and many more hoped to hold it in the future.
This curtailment of the kingly power and the division of the powers
which remained between two consuls of equal rank, while it secured the
protection of the citizens from the danger of a new monarchy, strongly
hindered vigor and unity of action in the prosecution of any
enterprise. There were times, therefore, during the succeeding
centuries in the life of Rome, when to meet temporary emergencies a
stronger and undivided rule was necessary. To meet this need a new
official was created--the dictator--who might be nominated by one of
the consuls upon the authorization of the Senate and who, during the
term of his office, which could not exceed six months, possessed and
exercised almost absolute authority at Rome, and superseded all the
other officials in their duties.
The original intention was that such an official should be appointed
only in cases of military necessity, but later this office was
frequently created to aid the patricians in their contests with the
plebeians. Only the patricians were eligible for any of the newly
created offices. The Senate was composed exclusively of this order,
and it has already been explained, in Chapter II, how, through the
expedient of putting more Roman citizens in some centuries than in the
others, the patricians were able to control the vote of the majority
of the centuries in the comitia centuriata.
It is thus apparent that the mere overthrow of the kings at Rome had
accomplished little for the ordinary Roman citizen. In fact, the rule
of a single monarch is often more beneficial to the poorer classes of
a community than the rule of a favored class. The establishment of a
republic, however, had eliminated one political element, and cleared
the stage for the contest between the patricians and plebeians.
That the economic condition of the poorer classes in Rome changed for
the worse after the institution of the republic is certain. It was for
the interest of the early Roman kings to favor and protect the small
Roman farmers, both for military and economic reasons. While the
permanent interests of the patricians would have been promoted by the
encouragement of this class, their temporary selfish interests called
for the destruction of the Roman middle class, primarily the middle
agricultural class, and the division of all Roman inhabitants into a
small aristocracy on the one hand and a large proletariat on the
other.
The two forms of exactions which fell the heaviest upon the Roman
poorer classes were the barbarous laws against debtors and the
dishonest administration of the public leaders. The desperate
condition of the debtors at Rome at this time was a result of a number
of different causes, including the high rate of interest, the right of
the creditor to sell the debtor into slavery if the debt were not
paid, the policy of the patrician creditors to demand the last pound
of flesh in all their transactions, and the conditions which existed
in Rome at this time which compelled many small landowners, against
their wish and without any fault of their own, to become borrowers of
money.
One harsh feature of this condition was the fact that it was the
military service, which as Roman citizens they were compelled to
render to the state, that more often than any other cause compelled
the plebeians to borrow money and thus ultimately drove them to their
ruin. For example, a small Roman farmer, through absence from his
home on military service for the state, might lose his crop for the
year. To support himself and his family until the next harvest, and to
supply the means for the planting of the next year's crop, he would be
obliged to borrow money, which, under the exorbitant rates of
interest, soon reached an amount out of proportion to the original
loan. Perhaps a second campaign would deprive him of the means of
returning the loan, and his lands would be taken from him and he
himself sold into slavery. As a final blow, the unfortunate plebeian
saw the lands which had been won for the state by armies composed of
his fellow plebeians reserved entirely for the use of the favored
patrician order.
No more pernicious and unfair system could have been evolved than that
which governed the management of the Roman public lands in the very
first years of the republic. The earlier policy, under the kings, had
been to divide the public land of the state into small allotments and
to distribute it among those citizens of the state who most needed it.
With the republic this policy ceased, and the public lands were
nominally retained in the public ownership, but in reality were let
out on leases to the patricians and a few favored men among the
plebeians.
In theory the state retained the right to take back the land at any
time and to receive a rent from the lessee; but in practice both these
rights were disregarded. The lands held in this manner by the
patricians were soon considered by them as much their own property as
those to which they held the legal title, and were devised and pledged
by their owners in substantially the same manner as any other land.
The collection of the rent was soon abandoned; and not only this, but
the land being in theory state land, the lessee (who was supposed to,
but did not, pay rent) was not liable to pay taxes on this land.
The final working out of this matter may be summed up by saying that
the poorer class of the plebeians furnished most of the soldiers for
the campaign, stood most of the expense, suffered nearly all the
losses both of life and property, were excluded from any share in the
land captured in the war, and as a culmination saw their taxes yearly
increased on account of the fact that the patricians, who monopolized
the public land, succeeded in dodging the payment of rent and in
evading the payment of taxes.
It was these conditions which brought about the remarkable spectacle
of what may be well designated the first recorded strike in history--a
strike in the Roman army. In 495 B.C. the Roman citizens were summoned
to take the field for another military campaign. They refused to obey.
One of the consuls, Publius Servilius, however, induced them to make
the campaign by suspending some of the laws bearing most heavily upon
the poor and by releasing all persons in prison for debt. But hardly
had the army returned from a victorious campaign than the other
consul, Appius Claudius, as a reward for their victory began to
enforce the debtor laws with extraordinary severity.
Once more, in the following year, the plebeians were induced to take
the field, mainly on account of the popularity of the dictator
appointed for the management of this campaign, Marius Valerius, and
his promise that upon the termination of the campaign permanent
reforms would be made in the law. Again the Roman army was victorious,
and again the patricians broke faith with the plebeians and refused
to carry out their promised reforms.
The next scene in this conflict is one almost without parallel, either
in ancient or modern history. The plebeians, disgusted by the
selfishness and perfidy of the patricians, determined to abandon Rome
to the patrician order and to found a new city for themselves upon the
"Sacred Mount," a hill situated between the Tiber and the Anio. The
patricians, thunderstruck by this unexpected movement, and being far
more in need of the plebeians than the plebeians were of them,
immediately made sufficient concessions to the plebeians to induce
them to return to Rome.
Some of the concessions made at this time related to temporary
provisions for relief of debtors; but the great innovation was that
which established the office of tribune. The character of the office
of tribune is absolutely unique in the political history of the world.
The tribunes, elected by the people in the comitia tributa, were
plebeian officers who were at first without any constructive part in
the carrying on of the Roman government and whose sole duty at the
outset was to protect the members of the plebeian order from the
oppression of the patrician officials. This protection was exercised
mainly through the use of the veto power given to the tribunes. Under
this power the tribunes had the right at any time to put a stop to any
act either by any of the public assemblies, by the Senate, or by any
of the magistrates. It was a power which, if exercised to its fullest
extent, could put a stop to the very carrying on of the government.
It speaks much for the moderation of the Roman tribunes that through
all the centuries of the Roman republic little serious inconvenience
was experienced from the use of this power. With few and unimportant
exceptions, it was exercised only in cases where the welfare of the
plebeians as a class, or of some particular plebeian, demanded it.
The creation of the office of tribune was merely one more example of
that system of checks and balances which played so prominent a part in
the framing of the government after the expulsion of the king--a
system of checks and balances so strikingly resembling that in our
Federal Constitution. The tribunes were introduced as a protection
for the plebeians and an additional restraint upon the magistrates.
While at first the power and duties of the tribunes were entirely of a
negative nature, they gradually acquired an authority of a positive
character. The tribunes generally presided over the comitia tributa
and took the lead in securing the passage of laws by that body. In
addition they acquired judicial powers, and in cases where a plebeian
had been wronged they could summon any citizen, even the consuls,
before them, and might impose even the death penalty. The persons of
the tribunes were declared inviolable, and any one who attacked them
was thought to be accursed. The number of the tribunes was at first
two, but was later increased to five and still later to ten.
The second great victory won by the plebeians was in the passage of
the Publilian Law in 471 B.C. This law was proposed by the tribune
Valerius Publilius, and was brought about by the murder of the tribune
Gnæus Genucius. The main object of this law was the protection of the
plebeian assembly and the plebeian officers, but its exact details are
unknown. It is believed by some that the comitia tributa really came
into existence with this law, and that previously the plebeians had
voted by curies. The law limited to plebeian freeholders the right to
vote in a plebeian assembly, and excluded nearly all the freedmen and
clients who were under the influence of the patricians as well as the
patricians themselves. It is possible also that the increase in the
number of the tribunes from two to five was made by this law. In 462
B.C. an unsuccessful attempt was made to abolish the office of
tribune; in 457 B.C. came the increase from five tribunes to ten.
From 451 to 450 B.C. the regular system of government at Rome was
interrupted by the election and rule of the _decemvirs_. The episode
of these decemvirs has an important place in Roman history; but (as is
the case with all events in Roman history in the fifth century before
Christ) our knowledge of these men, of their work, and of their
overthrow is very uncertain. The election of these officials was
primarily brought about by the recognized necessity for a reform and
codification of the Roman laws. If the duties of these men had been
limited to the preparation of such code, its character and position
would not have been unsimilar to that of numerous other bodies of men
appointed for a similar purpose in many countries and in all ages. But
the peculiarity about the work of the decemvirs lies in the fact that
upon their appointment all the ordinary Roman offices were
discontinued and the entire judicial and executive administration of
the state passed into the hands of the decemvirs.
During their first year of office the decemvirs drew up ten tables of
laws, so called because the laws were engraved upon tables of copper
and stood up in the Forum on the rostra in front of the Senate house.
According to the legends (for the Roman historical records of this
century are little more than such), it had originally been intended to
intrust the decemvirs with power only for a single year, but their
work being incomplete at the expiration of the first year, they were
chosen for a second year. It is uncertain whether the decemvirs for
the second year were exactly the same men as those for the first year.
According to some reports some of the decemvirs of the second year
were plebeians, while none of those originally elected belonged to
that order.
During their second year of office the decemvirs prepared two more
tables of laws, and these, with the ten tables prepared during the
preceding year, constituted the famous "Law of the Twelve Tables," the
first Roman code of which we have any knowledge. Only fragmentary
extracts from these tables have come down to us, but these fragments
furnish us with such an insight into early Roman laws, institutions,
and customs that they are here inserted:
THE TWELVE TABLES
TABLE I
THE SUMMONS BEFORE THE MAGISTRATE
1. If the plaintiff summon a man to appear before the
magistrate and he refuse to go, the plaintiff shall first
call witnesses and arrest him.
2. If the defendant attempt evasion or flight, the plaintiff
shall take him by force.
3. If the defendant be prevented by illness or old age, let
him who summons him before the magistrate furnish a beast of
burden, but he need not send a covered carriage for him
unless he choose.
4. For a wealthy defendant only a wealthy man may go bail;
any one who chooses may go bail for a poor citizen of the
lowest class.
5. In case the contestants come to an agreement, the
magistrate shall announce the fact.
6. In case they come to no agreement, they shall before noon
enter the case in the comitium or forum.
7. To the party present in the afternoon the magistrate
shall award the suit.
9. Sunset shall terminate the proceedings.
10. ... sureties and sub-sureties....
TABLE II
JUDICIAL PROCEDURE
2. A serious illness or a legal appointment with an alien
... should one of these occur to the judge, arbiter, or
either party to the suit, the appointed trial must be
postponed.
3. If the witnesses of either party fail to appear, that
party shall go and serve a verbal notice at his door on
three days.
TABLE III
EXECUTION FOLLOWING CONFESSION OR JUDGMENT
1. A debtor, either by confession or judgment, shall have
thirty days' grace.
2. At the expiration of this period the plaintiff shall
serve a formal summons upon the defendant, and bring him
before the magistrate.
3. If the debt be not paid, or if no one become surety, the
plaintiff shall lead him away, and bind him with shackles
and fetters of not less than fifteen pounds' weight, and
heavier at his discretion.
4. If the debtor wish, he may live at his own expense; if
not, he in whose custody he may be shall furnish him a pound
of meal a day, more at his discretion.
6. On the third market day the creditors, if there are
several, shall divide the property. If one take more or
less, no guilt shall attach to him.
TABLE IV
PATERNAL RIGHTS
3. If a father shall thrice sell his son, the son shall be
free from the paternal authority.
TABLE V
INHERITANCE AND TUTELAGE
3. What has been appointed in regard to the property or
tutelage shall be binding in law.
4. If a man die intestate, having no natural heirs, his
property shall pass to the nearest agnate.
5. If there be no agnate, the gentiles shall succeed.
7. ... if one be hopelessly insane, his agnates and gentiles
shall have authority over him and his property ... in case
there be none to take charge....
8. ... from that estate ... into that estate.
TABLE VI
OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION
1. Whenever a party shall negotiate a nexum or transfer by
mancipatio, according to the formal statement so let the law
be.
5. Whoever in presence of the magistrates shall join issue
by manuum consertio....
7. A beam built into a house or vine trellis shall not be
removed.
9. When the vines have been pruned, until the grapes are
removed....
TABLE VII
LAW CONCERNING REAL PROPERTY
5. If parties get into dispute about boundaries....
7. They shall pave the way. If they do not pave the way with
stones a man may drive where he pleases.
8. If water from rain gutters cause damage....
TABLE VIII
ON TORTS
1. Whoever shall chant a magic spell....
2. If a man maim another, and does not compromise with him,
there shall be retaliation in kind.
3. If with the fist or club a man break a bone of a freeman,
the penalty shall be three hundred asses; if of a slave, one
hundred and fifty asses.
4. If he does any injury to another, twenty-five asses; if
he sing a satirical song let him be beaten.
5. ... if he shall have inflicted a loss ... he shall make
it good.
6. Whoever shall blight the crops of another by incantation
... nor shalt thou win over to thyself another's grain....
12. If a thief be caught stealing by night and he be slain,
the homicide shall be lawful.
13. If in the daytime the thief defend himself with a
weapon, one may kill him.
15. ... with a leather girdle about his naked body, and a
platter in his hand....
16. If a man contend at law about a theft not detected in
the act....
21. If a patron cheat his client, he shall become infamous.
22. He who has been summoned as a witness or acts as
libripens, and shall refuse to give his testimony, shall be
accounted infamous, and shall be incapable of acting
subsequently as witness.
24. If a weapon slip from a man's hand without his intention
of hurling it....
TABLE IX
(No fragments of this table are extant.)
TABLE X
SACRED LAW
1. They shall not inter or burn a dead man within the city.
2. ... more than this a man shall not do ... ; a man shall
not smooth the wood for the funeral pyre with an ax.
4. Women shall not lacerate their faces, nor indulge in
immoderate wailing for the dead.
5. They shall not collect the bones of a dead man for a
second interment.
7. Whoever wins a crown, either in person or by his slaves
or animals, or has received it for valor....
8. ... he shall not add gold ... ; but gold used in joining
the teeth.... This may be burned or buried with the dead
without incurring any penalty.
TABLE XI
(No fragments of this table are extant.)
TABLE XII
SUPPLEMENTARY LAWS
2. If a slave has committed theft, or has done damage....
3. If either party shall have won a suit concerning property
by foul means, at the discretion of the opponent ... the
magistrate shall fix the damage at twice the profits arising
from the interim possession.
The decemvirs were forcibly overthrown before the close of their
second year in office. The stories as to the cause are not only
conflicting but diametrically so. According to one historical theory,
the rebellion against the decemvirs began among the plebeians on
account of the oppression which they suffered from the hands of these
men; while, on the other hand, it is believed by many historians that
the decemvirs were overthrown by the patricians because they were
giving too many concessions to the plebeians. Whatever the cause, the
power of the decemvirs was taken from them and all the former Roman
officials and assemblies were reëstablished, with the old powers and
jurisdictions. The "Law of the Twelve Tables," which the decemvirs had
drawn up, however, remained for centuries as the great basis of Roman
law.
Five years after the deposition of the decemvirs the tribune Canuleius
secured the passage by the comitia tributa of the Canuleian Law, which
marked another milestone passed by the plebeians in their march toward
equality before the law.
Two great concessions were given by this act, one in the field of
private and the other in the field of public law. The law which had
existed from the earliest days in Rome, and which had been
incorporated in the "Law of the Twelve Tables," prohibiting
intermarriage between plebeians and patricians, was abolished. It was
also provided that any year the people, instead of electing consuls,
might elect military tribunes, who should possess all the powers,
although not all the dignities, of the consuls. Either patricians or
plebeians could be elected to the office of military tribunes.
The election of military tribunes was authorized by law many years
before any such officials were elected in Rome; but the fear that the
consular power might sometime fall into the hands of a plebeian
induced the patricians in 443 B.C. to secure the passage of a law for
the creation of new officials who should possess some of the powers
previously held by the consul and who must be chosen from the
patrician order.
These new officials, called censors, were to be two in number and were
to be elected every five years. At first these officials held office
until the time arrived for the election of their successors, but later
their term of office was limited to one year and a half, there thus
being three and one half years out of every five-year period when this
office was in abeyance.
The most important duty given to the censors at the outset seems to
have been the authority of filling vacancies in the Senate as it
became necessary to keep the number up to the required three hundred.
Up to this time this power of appointing senators had been exercised
by the consul. As time went on, however, the powers of this office
rapidly increased until at length it became the highest post of honor
at Rome, the men elected censors being almost invariably former
consuls or military tribunes.
The arbitrary power of inquisition over all the public affairs of Rome
and the private conduct of the Roman citizens was so astonishingly
great that we wonder how it could have existed without constant and
gross abuses. In the later days of the republic the censors had the
right to make a so-called "censorial note" of all Roman citizens, who,
without having gone to the point of violating the criminal law, or at
least without having been convicted of a crime, had been guilty of
dishonorable or immoral conduct. All persons thus named suffered
severe civic penalties. If the person were a senator he lost his seat
in the Senate; if a knight, he lost the peculiar privileges belonging
to this rank. In every case the person lost his membership in the
association of his tribe and was subject to increased taxation.
The exclusive right to serve as censors was one of the last exclusive
privileges retained by the patricians, the plebeians not being made
eligible to this office until 339 B.C.
Although Rome was in an almost constant state of warfare during the
fifth century before Christ, the conflicts were neither on a large
scale nor decisive in their results. The chief enemies of Rome were
the neighboring Latin and Etruscan cities, with one or another of whom
Rome was almost constantly engaged in hostilities. At the beginning
of the fourth century before Christ Rome was attacked by a new and
more terrible enemy from the north, who very nearly changed the whole
course of the world's history by wiping the city of Rome out of
existence before its career of greatness had begun.
This enemy was the Gauls, who captured and burned Rome in the year 390
B.C., but who failed to take the citadel of the city and finally
withdrew, either being driven away or bribed to depart. Not only are
the details of the capture of Rome by the Gauls very uncertain, but by
destroying all the old Roman records and many of the Roman monuments
in their sack of Rome, the Gauls are responsible for much of the
uncertainty which exists as to the truth of the details of the history
of Rome prior to their invasion. In fact, it is generally considered
that the authentic history of Rome begins only after 390 B.C., the
history of the Roman kingdom being little more than mythology; while
what we know of the Roman republic prior to 390 B.C. consists of an
inseparable mixture of true history and legendary tales.
After the departure of the Gauls the question arose whether Rome
should be rebuilt on its old site or whether all the Romans should
migrate in a body to Veii. It was only after a long discussion that it
was finally decided to remain at Rome.
The rebuilding of Rome was immediately followed by another period of
conflict between the patricians and plebeians. Two causes of
discontent brought about the renewal of this contest. The first was
the financial condition of the poorer classes, who had been rendered
more desperate through the losses occasioned by the Gallic invasion;
and second, the desire of the richer plebeians to share in the
political honors reserved exclusively for the patricians.
In this contest the leaders of the plebeians were the tribunes Gaius
Licinius and Lucius Sextius, who were, year after year, reëlected to
this office by the people.
The so-called Licinian Laws, first introduced by these tribunes in 376
B.C., were adopted only after the most bitter political contest which
up to this time had ever been fought in Rome. Time and again, the
tribunes resorted to their veto power to put a stop to the carrying
on of every function of the Roman government. These laws were finally
passed in 367 B.C., their three great provisions being as follows:
1. That of all debts on which interest had been paid, the sum of the
interest paid should be deducted from the principal, and the remainder
paid off in three successive years.
2. That no citizen should hold more than five hundred _jugera_ (nearly
320 acres) of the public land, or should feed on the public pastures
more than one hundred head of larger cattle and five hundred of
smaller, under penalty of a heavy fine.
3. That henceforth consuls, not consular tribunes, should always be
elected, and that one of the two consuls must be a plebeian.
Although the Licinian Laws are generally held to have equalized the
different orders at Rome, to have terminated forever the bitter
jealousy between patricians and plebeians, to have put a stop for a
time to class controversies of all kinds, and to have rendered
possible the great career of foreign conquest upon which Rome soon
entered, the fact remains that the benefit of these laws was
experienced far more by the small class of wealthy plebeians than by
the great mass of this order.
Henceforth, with very few exceptions, one consul was always a
plebeian, Lucius Sextius being the first plebeian consul and Gaius
Licinius the third; but the chance of being elected consul was in
reality limited to a small class of plebeians and conferred little
practical benefit upon the ordinary member of the order.
The laws for the relief of the poorer classes were not so fully
enforced. In particular, the wealthy citizens holding large allotments
of the public land found methods by which to evade the carrying out of
the provisions of this new law, and we are surprised to find Licinius
himself as one of the offenders in this respect.
It was in the period following the passage of the Licinian Laws that
the greatest inequalities in wealth began to appear at Rome, and the
numbers of free small landowners to decrease.
The history of the Licinian Laws and of the following period show
conclusively how mere political equality is never sufficient to secure
the welfare of the mass of the community, and that the power held by
a class possessed of great wealth, but without special political
privileges, is greater than that of a recognized nobility, and far
more apt to be abused, on account of the absence of any feeling of
class honor.
Two slight efforts were made by the patricians to counteract the
political provisions of the Licinian Laws. For the first eleven years
after the passage of the Licinian Laws one consul was a plebeian and
one a patrician. In the thirteen years beginning with 355 B.C., two
patricians were elected consuls in eight of the years; after this,
violations of the law ceased, and one consul belonged to each order
down to the year 172 B.C., when both consulships were open to the
plebeians. The wealthy class of both orders had been so mingled by
this time that thereafter consuls were elected indiscriminately from
either order, although this election was almost invariably restricted
to the members of the great families.
Immediately after the passage of the Licinian Laws the patricians
secured the creation of a new office. The man holding this office was
called _prætor_, and was given the judicial powers formerly belonging
to the consuls. At a later period the number of prætors was increased
to two, one of whom, known as the _prætor urbanus_, had jurisdiction
over controversies between Roman citizens, and the other, the _prætor
peregrinus_, who had jurisdiction over controversies between
foreigners residing at Rome and between Romans and foreigners.
CHAPTER V
THE PERIOD OF FOREIGN CONQUEST
The most glorious period of Roman history, from the military
standpoint, followed closely upon the cessation of fierce national
contests in the fourth century before Christ. The united efforts of
patricians and plebeians, devoted to the task of foreign conquest,
proved sufficient in a few generations to win for Rome her world
empire.
"The fifth century is the most beautiful century of Rome.
The plebeians had conquered the consulship and are
succeeding in conquering their admission to other
magistracies which the patricians wished to reserve; they
free themselves from the servitude which, under the name of
Nexus, weighed on the debtors. They arrive at political
equality and individual independence; at the same time the
old aristocracy still dominates in the Senate and maintains
there the inflexibility of its resolves and the persistence
of its designs. It was thanks to this interior condition
that the Roman people was able to survive the strongest
tests from without over which it had triumphed, and to make
that progress which cost it most dear. We see the peoples
fight, one by one, and often all together; the Latin people,
the Etruscans, the Goths, the Samnites, the other Sabellic
peoples of the Apennines; and the end is always victory.
The beginnings of this history were somber. Rome was
afflicted by one of those pestilences which one finds in all
the epochs of the history of this unsanitary city. Thence
was the origin of those scenic pieces imported by the
Etruscans and giving origin to comedy--a means devised to
appease the gods; so that Roman comedy had an origin
religious and dismal. The fifth century is for Rome the age
of great devotions and of grand sacrifices." (J. J. Ampère
in _L'empire romaine à Rome_.)
A full description of the various military campaigns of Rome would
tend to obscure rather than to illumine the political and economic
history of the city. An enumeration of the foreign conquests of Rome
during this period, however, is necessary to indicate the rapid
increase in the territorial possessions of Rome, with their inevitable
reaction upon the domestic conditions of the republic.
The first wars of Rome after the passage of the Licinian Laws were
renewed contests with her neighboring enemies. In 361 B.C. Rome was
again threatened by a new invasion of the Gauls. The following year
the Roman records mention a victory over the Hernicans by one Roman
consul, and over the Gauls, and the Latins of Tibur, by the other.
This alliance of the Gauls with a portion of the Latins so alarmed
the majority of the Latin cities that a new league between the Romans
and Latins was formed in 358 B.C. The Gauls soon after retired from
the neighborhood of Latium, and their allies, Tibur and Privernum,
were compelled to enter the new Latin League.
A war waged against Rome by the Etruscan city of Tarquinii and its
allies so seriously threatened Rome that the Roman political factions
forgot their differences so far as to agree to the appointment (for
the first time in the history of the city) of a plebeian, in the
person of C. Marcius Rutilus, to the office of dictator. The old
jealousy of the patricians, however, was soon manifested again in the
opposition of the Senate to the granting of a triumph to this plebeian
for the great military victory which he soon won.
In 350 B.C. a third invasion of the Gauls was repulsed by the Romans.
The next great contest in which Rome was engaged was that with the
Samnites. This race was both the most worthy and the most bitter of
the enemies of Rome within Italy, and the long warfare between Rome
and the Samnites was terminated only by the practical extermination
of the latter race. The First Samnite War extended from 343 to 341
B.C. and was indecisive in its results, the Samnites at its close
agreeing to give a year's pay and three months' provisions to the
Roman army, and being permitted to make war on the Sidicini.
The close of the First Samnite War was followed closely by the Latin
War (340-338 B.C.). This war was brought about by the jealousy felt by
the other Latin towns toward Rome. Rome had been abusing her position
as the capital of the Latin League, and desired to acquire an
acknowledged supremacy over Latium. The war was an effort on the part
of the other Latin cities to restrain the too rapidly increasing power
of Rome and to reëstablish the balance of power in Latium. In this war
was seen the extraordinary spectacle of the Samnites appearing as
allies of Rome. The Hernicans also aided the Romans, and the Sidicini
and Campanians aided the Latins. The war resulted in the complete
overthrow of the Latins; but the Romans showed great generosity and
good judgment in their treatment of the conquered cities after the
war, and thus did much toward binding the Latins to Rome for the
future.
The main provisions of the peace agreements were as follows: Roman
citizenships, in different degrees, were conferred upon the
inhabitants of the various Latin towns, who were, however, forbidden
to form any leagues among themselves or to hold diets; intermarriage
and commerce between the different Latin towns were prohibited; the
_municipium_ such as the Latins had previously possessed was given to
the citizens of Capua, Cumæ, Formiæ, Fundi, and Suessula; the Latin
contingents in the Roman army were henceforth to be permitted to serve
apart from the legions under their own officers; and the Latin public
land, two thirds of that of Privernum, and the lands in the Falernian
district of Campania were taken by Rome, as were also the lands of the
principal families of Velitræ, who were compelled to emigrate beyond
the Tiber.
Ten years of peace followed, and then came the second and greatest of
the Samnite wars (327-304 B.C.). The Samnites were aided during part
of the war by the Etruscans and the Hernicans, but at the end the
Samnites were compelled to acknowledge the supremacy of Rome and give
up their independence. The Hernicans were completely overthrown in 307
B.C., and were united to Rome on conditions very similar to those
possessed by the Latins.
In the Third Samnite War (298-290 B.C.) the Romans were again
victorious, although a league of Samnites, Etruscans, Gauls, and
Umbrians was formed against them. The exact terms of the treaty of
peace at the conclusion of this war are not recorded, but undoubtedly
riveted Roman control still more strongly upon Samnium.
It was the final result of the Roman-Samnite wars which finally
determined the question of the overlordship of Italy. Of all the
numerous races of Italy, two and only two possessed the stamina which
rendered them possible unifiers of the whole peninsula. Rome's defeat
of Samnium left her without a rival in Italy and ready for contests
with her later and greater rivals. The close of the Third Samnite War,
however, did not end the resistance of the Samnites to Roman rule.
Even down to the time of the contests of Marius and Sulla we find this
race grasping every opportunity to strike a blow against Roman
dominion.
In 284 B.C. the Tarentines succeeded in bringing about a union of the
Samnites, Lucanians, Umbrians, Bruttians, Etruscans, and Gauls against
Rome. This war was a series of victories for the Romans. By the year
282 B.C. all of the Roman enemies were subdued except the Etruscans,
with whom the war continued until 280 B.C. In this last-named year the
Romans, alarmed by the danger of war with Pyrrhus, concluded a peace
with the Etruscans on such terms as changed these people from
bitterest enemies into most faithful allies.
The time had now arrived when Rome was called upon for the first time
to cross arms with enemies from beyond the Italian peninsula. The
first of these contests with a foreign power was fought out entirely
within the confines of Italy.
The year 280 B.C. saw the beginning of the contest between Rome and
Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, who had been summoned to Italy as an ally of
the Greek city of Tarentum. At the outset the Romans suffered two
great defeats, at Heraclea and on the plain of Apulian Asculum,
largely through their inability to meet the attacks of the phalanxes
and of the war elephants. In the end, however, Pyrrhus, although aided
by all the enemies of Rome in southern and central Italy, ended his
campaign in failure and returned to Epirus in 275 B.C., his dream of a
great western empire forever shattered.
In the ten years following the departure of Pyrrhus the subjugation of
all Italy was completed, followed by a reorganization of the
government of the Roman colonies and subject cities.
The second foreign enemy of Rome was Carthage, and the most dramatic
pages in the whole history of Roman conquest are those which relate
the story of the contest between these two titanic rivals for world
supremacy. The immediate cause of the First Punic War arose over the
possession of Messana, a city in Sicily separated from Italy by only a
narrow strait; but war between Rome and Carthage was inevitable; and
if Messana had not become the bone of contention, another would have
been found. The First Punic War lasted from 264 to 241 B.C. and
resulted in victory for Rome. By the terms of peace Carthage gave up
Sicily and all the small islands between Sicily and Italy, and paid a
heavy war indemnity to Rome. Shortly after the close of the war the
Romans, by threats, compelled the Carthaginians to surrender also the
islands of Sardinia and Corsica.
In 230 B.C. the Romans were engaged in war with the Illyrian pirates;
and from 226 to 221 B.C. with the Insubrian Gauls, both of which
conflicts resulted in easy victories for the Roman arms.
In the meantime Hamilcar, his son Hannibal, and his son-in-law
Hasdrubal had been busy in Spain, reducing it under Carthaginian rule
and preparing it to be used as a base of operation from which an
invasion of Italy might be attempted whenever a favorable opportunity
should present itself.
In 227 B.C. the Romans, becoming alarmed at the spread of the
Carthaginian empire in Spain, insisted on a treaty by which the river
Ebro was fixed as the northern boundary beyond which the control of
Carthage should never extend. In 219 B.C. Hannibal (whose father and
brother-in-law had by this time both fallen in the war) attacked the
city of Saguntum, which, though south of the Ebro, was an ally of
Rome. No heed being taken of the Roman remonstrances, war was again
declared.
The Second Punic War lasted from 218 to 202 B.C. The early years of
this war saw a long series of Carthaginian victories, and their great
general, Hannibal, has ever since ranked as one of the greatest
military geniuses in history. This war, however, has been well
described as that of a man against a nation; and in the end the nation
conquered. The final battle was that of Zama, fought in Africa in 202
B.C.
By the terms of the treaty of peace made at the close of this war
Carthage surrendered to Rome all her territorial possessions outside
of Africa, all her elephants, and all her war ships except three
triremes, and also bound herself to pay a heavy annual tribute for
fifty years. In addition, Carthage was prohibited from making war,
under any circumstances, outside of Africa, nor within Africa except
with the consent of Rome; and was compelled to return to the ally of
the Romans, Masinissa, king of Numidia, all the territory and property
which had been taken from him or his predecessors by Carthage. In
many respects, however, the treaty was favorable to Carthage, who was
permitted to keep her African territory practically intact, who was
also permitted to keep her independence, and was not required to
receive any Roman garrison.
The Second Punic War was the decisive contest between Rome and
Carthage, the First Punic War being indecisive and the third being
merely the destruction of an already conquered people. This Second
Punic War, however, was something more than the decisive contest
between Rome and Carthage; it was the decisive contest between two
continents, two races, two systems of institutions. The battle of
Metaurus has justly been classed as one of the decisive battles of the
world. The capture of Rome by Hannibal could not have failed to have
entirely altered the whole future course of history. If Hannibal had
been able to carry back to Carthage the spoils of a conquered Rome he
would also have carried with them to Africa the scepter of world
empire. He would have wrested race supremacy and the leading place in
civilization from the Aryan for the Hamitic races. For many
centuries, at least, the center of power and civilization would have
been upon the southern instead of the northern shores of the
Mediterranean, and it is at least doubtful whether, even to-day, the
northern races could have completely eradicated the effects of such an
event.
In spite of the earlier triumphs of Persia and Greece, it was not
until the Roman victory over the Carthaginians that the position of
the Aryan races became definitely assured.
Mommsen writes on the results of the Second Punic War as follows:
"It remains for us to sum up the results of this terrible
war, which for seventeen years had devastated the lands and
islands from the Hellespont to the Pillars of Hercules. Rome
was henceforth compelled by the force of circumstances to
assume a position at which she had not directly aimed, and
to exercise sovereignty over all the lands of the
Mediterranean. Outside Italy there arose the two new
provinces in Spain, where the natives lived in a state of
perpetual insurrection; the kingdom of Syracuse was now
included in the Roman province of Sicily; a Roman instead of
a Carthaginian protectorate was now established over the
most important Numidian chiefs; Carthage was changed from a
powerful commercial state into a defenseless mercantile
town. Thus all the western Mediterranean passed under the
supremacy of Rome. In Italy itself, the destruction of the
Celts became a mere question of time: the ruling Latin
people had been exalted by the struggle to a position of
still greater eminence over the heads of the non-Latin or
Latinized Italians such as the Etruscans and Sabellians in
lower Italy. A terrible punishment was inflicted on the
allies of Hannibal. Capua was reduced from the position of
second city to that of first village in Italy; the whole
soil, with a few exceptions, was declared to be public
domain-land, and was leased out to small occupiers. The same
fate befell the Picentes on the Silarus. The Bruttians
became in a manner bondsmen to the Romans and were forbidden
to carry arms. All the Greek cities which had supported
Hannibal were treated with great severity; and in the case
of a number of Apulian, Lucanian, and Samnite communities a
loss of territory was inflicted, and new colonies were
planted. Throughout Italy the non-Latin allies were made to
feel their utter subjection to Rome, and the comedies of the
period testify to the scorn of the victorious Romans.
"It seems probable that not less than three hundred thousand
Italians perished in this war, the brunt of which loss fell
chiefly on Rome. After the battle of Cannæ it was found
necessary to fill up the hideous gap in the Senate by an
extraordinary nomination of 177 senators; the ordinary
burgesses suffered hardly less severely. Further, the
terrible strain on the resources of the state had shaken the
national economy to its very foundations. Four hundred
flourishing townships had been utterly ruined. The blows
inflicted on the simple morality of the citizens and farmers
by a camp life worked no less mischief. Gangs of robbers and
desperadoes plundered Italy in dangerous numbers. Home
agriculture saw its existence endangered by the proof, first
given in war, that the Roman people could be supported by
foreign grain from Sicily and Egypt. Still, at the close and
happy issue of so terrible a struggle, Rome might justly
point with pride to the past and with confidence to the
future. In spite of many errors she had survived all danger,
and the only question now was whether she would have the
wisdom to make right use of her victory, to bind still more
closely to herself the Latin people, to gradually Latinize
all her Italian subjects, and to rule her foreign dependents
as subjects, not as slaves--whether she would reform her
constitution and infuse new vigor into the unsound and
fast-decaying portion of her state."
Up to the close of the third century before Christ the wars of Rome
had been mainly forced upon her by the aggressions of others, or had
grown out of disputes which had arisen in the natural course of
events; but after the battle of Zama, Rome entered deliberately upon a
career of foreign conquest.
In 200 B.C. a Roman army invaded Macedon, and Philip, the king of this
country, was completely defeated at the battle of Cynoscephalæ in 197
B.C., but the Romans consented to easy terms of peace at this time on
account of the expectation of a war with Syria. The first war between
Rome and Antiochus the Great, king of Syria, began in 191 B.C. and
ended in 187 B.C. By the terms of peace Antiochus gave up all his
claims in Europe, and in Asia west of the Taurus.
The Second Macedonian War began in 172 B.C. and was concluded by the
great Roman victory at Pydna in 168 B.C. Macedon was at first divided
into four republics, between which the rights of _connubium_ and
_commercium_ were prohibited, but soon sank into the condition of a
Roman province. Roman influence and interference were also rapidly
increasing in Greece during this period, although no formal annexation
of territory was made at this time.
The Third Punic War (149-146 B.C.), forced by Rome upon an almost
helpless antagonist, resulted in the complete overthrow of the
greatest of Rome's rivals. Carthage was completely destroyed, and
Africa became a Roman province.
The Achæan War (147-146 B.C.) resulted in the practical subjection of
all Greece to Rome; and between the years 143 and 133 B.C. the
conquest of Spain was completed.
The interest in Roman history during the period from 367 to 133 B.C.
is mainly centered in the military achievements of the republic, but
certain events in the political history of Rome during this period
must be noted before passing to a consideration of the violent
political conflicts which arose over the proposed reforms of the
Gracchi.
By the Lex Horatia and the Lex Publilia (339 B.C.) it was provided
that the _plebiscita_ (that is, the decrees of the comitia tributa)
should be binding as laws; that one of the censors must be a plebeian;
and that the subsequent ratification by the Senate should not be
necessary to render valid the laws passed by the comitia centuriata.
In 326 B.C. the Lex Poetelia Papiria prohibited debtors from assigning
themselves as security for debts. This did not interfere with the
selling of a debtor into slavery by means of the _legis actio per
manus injectionem_; it merely prohibited the debtor from using himself
as a special pledge to secure the payment of the debt.
In 304 B.C. the plebeians secured the publication of a manual
containing full information as to the proper steps in the proceedings
in the various _legis actiones_, and also as to the _dies fasti_. In
the early days at Rome all legal knowledge had belonged to the
patricians, who had always strenuously resisted any movement toward
making such information open to all. An exclusive knowledge of the law
is of great advantage to any special class in any community, and one
eagerly sought under different disguises in many countries. The
present attempt to monopolize legal education in the United States,
and to attack all movements which might tend to a general diffusion of
legal knowledge among the mass of the community, is merely another
manifestation of the same spirit which animated the Roman patricians
in their long contests to keep all legal knowledge away from the
plebeians. While the study of all professions which have no political
signification, such as that of medicine, may safely be regulated by
the government, and while the government may without injustice impose
proper qualifications upon those who desire to practice law as their
profession, any attempt of the government to restrict the teaching or
study of the law, or to impose upon those desiring to take bar
examinations restrictions intended merely to keep out of the
profession those not fortunate enough to belong to the wealthy
classes, can be intended only as an attack on democratic principles
and as an attempt to create a monopoly of legal learning for improper
purposes.
In 286 B.C. was passed the Hortensian Law, which brought about the
complete political equality of plebeians and patricians, whatever
slight distinctions still remained being removed by this law.
CHAPTER VI
THE TRIBES, THE COLONIES, AND THE PROVINCES
Complete equality of political and civil rights has never existed, in
any republic, among those subject to the laws; and throughout the
whole history of the Roman republic the most striking discriminations
existed between different strata in the political and economic
organizations.
The contests arising from caste distinctions among the Romans
themselves are discussed in other chapters of this volume; it is here
proposed to treat of the distinctions existing between Roman citizens,
allies, and subjects and to describe briefly the status of each class.
Just as in the days of the Roman kingdom the test of Roman citizenship
was membership in one of the curiæ, so in the time of the republic the
test became membership in one of the tribes.
In the early days of the republic the number of tribes was twenty-one.
Four new tribes were established in 387 B.C. in the conquered
territories of Veii, Capena, and Falerii. Other tribes were from time
to time created, until by the time of the close of the war with
Pyrrhus the total number of tribes was thirty-three. The twelve new
tribes occupied a district beyond the Tiber extending a little farther
than Veii, a portion of the Sabine and Aequian territory beyond the
Anio, part of Latium, part of the Volscian territory, and the coast
lands as far as the Liris. The last addition to the number of tribes
at Rome took place in 235 B.C., when the number was increased to
thirty-five.
The struggles in Rome for the extension of political rights and
privileges were always of a concrete, never of an abstract character.
We find none of the philosophy of Montesquieu among the Romans; no
discussion of natural rights, no effort for the securing of political
equality in the abstract. The Roman contests for liberty were always
of a strictly practical and, it might perhaps be added, of a strictly
selfish character. We find a series of conflicts, in each of which a
certain class of the citizens (or subjects) of Rome fought for the
right to be enrolled among those possessed of Roman political rights.
At first the contests were all between the actual inhabitants of Rome
itself. The political controversies, however, did not terminate upon
the admission of the plebeians to full political rights. After the
plebeians had won their contests there came the Latins, and after the
Latins the Italians.
The relation between early Rome and the other cities of Latium was of
the closest character. From the remotest times, long before the
foundation of Rome, a league of Latin cities was in existence. At the
head of this league stood Alba Longa (the long white city). Rome in an
early period in her history overthrew Alba Longa and succeeded to her
place at the head of the confederacy. While, however, the primary of
Alba Longa had never extended beyond giving to that city the honorary
presidency of the league, making it the religious center of Latium,
the leadership of Rome was of a real and substantial character. By the
terms of agreement between the members of the new Latin League, Rome
was tacitly ranked as the equal of the other cities combined, it being
agreed that all territory won by the league in war should be divided,
one half to Rome and one half among the other cities. The rights of
intermarriage and of trade existed between all the cities of the
league.
In 384 B.C. Rome was strong enough to compel the league to agree to
the closing of its membership. At that time there were in the league
thirty towns with full Latin rights and seventeen towns without the
right of voting. Towns which in the future should become connected
with the league were to have the rights of intermarriage and of trade
only with Rome.
The Latin League came to an end in 338 B.C. The extension of the
rights of Roman citizenship, either complete or qualified, to other
races in Italy is referred to in other chapters of this book. The
history of this subject is thus summarized by Mommsen:
"It remains for us to consider the political effect of the
mighty changes consequent upon the establishment of Roman
supremacy in Italy. We do not know with exactness what
privileges Rome reserved for herself as sovereign state. It
is certain that she alone could make war, conclude treaties,
and coin money; and that, further, any war or treaty
resolved upon by the Roman people was legally binding on all
Italian communities, and that the silver money of Rome was
current everywhere in Italy.
"The relations of the Italians to Rome cannot in all cases
be precisely defined, but the main features are as follows.
In the first place, the full Roman franchise was extended as
far as was compatible with the preservation of the urban
character of the Roman community. Those who received this
franchise may be divided into three classes. First, all the
occupants of the various allotments of state lands, now
embracing a considerable portion of Etruria and Campania,
were included. Second, all the communities which, after the
method first adopted in the case of Tusculum, were
incorporated and completely merged in the Roman state....
Finally, full Roman citizenship was possessed by the
maritime or burgess colonies which had been instituted for
the protection of the coast....
"Thus the title of Roman citizen in its fullest sense was
possessed by men dwelling as far north as Lake Sabatinus, as
far east as the Apennines, and as far south as Formiæ. But
within those limits isolated communities such as Tibur,
Præneste, Signia, and Norba, were without the Roman
franchise; while beyond them other communities, such as
Sena, possessed it.
"In the next place, we must distinguish the various grades
of subjection which marked all the communities not honored
with the full Roman franchise. As in the case of the
recipients of full citizenship, so here we may make a
threefold division. To the first division belong the Latin
towns: these retained their Latin rights; that is, they were
self-governing and stood on an equal footing with Roman
citizens as regards the right of trading and inheritance.
But it is important to observe that the Latins of the later
times of the republic were no longer for the most part
members of the old Latin towns, which had participated in
the Alban festival, but were colonists planted in Latium by
Rome, who honored Rome as their capital and parent city, and
formed the main supports of Roman rule in Latium. Indeed,
the old Latin communities, with the exception of Tibur and
Præneste, had sunk into insignificance. It was but natural
that the Latin colonies, issuing as they did from the
burgess-body of Rome, should not rest content with mere
Latin rights, but should aim at the full rights of Roman
citizens. Rome, on the other hand, now that Italy was
subjugated, no longer felt her former need of these
colonies; nor did she deem it prudent to extend the full
franchise with the same freedom as she hitherto had done....
"To the second division belong those towns whose inhabitants
were passive citizens of Rome (_cives sine suffragio_). They
were liable to service in the Roman legions and to taxation,
and were included in the Roman census. A deputy or prefect
appointed annually by the Roman prætor administered justice
according to laws which were subjected to Roman revision.
"In the third and last division we may include all allied
communities which were not Latin states; the relation of
these towns to Rome was defined by separate treaties, and
therefore varied in accordance with the terms imposed by
such agreements....
"It had taken Rome 120 years to complete the union of the
Italian peninsula, broken up as it was by mountain ranges
and naturally favoring the formation and preservation of
various isolated states. But union it was, rather than a
subjugation, and each nation was left to the practical
management of its own affairs. Content with self-government,
the various communities, for the most part, easily bore the
yoke of Roman supremacy. Eventually all the municipal towns
received the full Roman franchise (90 B.C.), and thus
established the municipal principle of government which
endures to the present day."
The rights of Roman citizenship were never generally given outside of
the Italian peninsula, although such rights were granted to a few
favored individuals in all portions of the Roman world. The possession
of these rights was the greatest privilege which could be acquired by
any subject of Rome. Even when the strictly political rights of such
citizen disappeared under the empire, the personal distinction and
protection connected with this citizenship remained. As striking an
evidence of the dignity and privileges of a Roman citizen as could be
desired is found in the Bible in the twenty-second chapter of Acts:
"The chief captain commanded him to be brought into the
castle, and bade that he should be examined by scourging;
that he might know wherefore they cried so against him.
"And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the
centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a
man that is a Roman, and uncondemned?
"When the centurion heard _that_, he went and told the chief
captain, saying, Take heed what thou doest: for this man is
a Roman.
"Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me,
art thou a Roman? He said, Yea.
"And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I
this freedom. And Paul said, But I was _free_ born.
"Then straightway they departed from him which should have
examined him: and the chief captain also was afraid, after
he knew that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him."
At the close of the Second Punic War Rome was in possession of five
provinces--Sicily, Sardinia, Hither Spain, Farther Spain, and the
Gallic coast of Umbria. This latter province soon became an integral
part of Italy, but the number of Roman provinces was kept at five by
the creation of the province of Cisalpine Gaul. From this time on the
number of Roman provinces rapidly increased. The existence of the
provinces perpetuated the existence of various classes of political
rights.
We will close this account with a description by Gibbon of the
relations between Rome and the provinces as they existed during the
closing years of the republic and the early days of the empire:
"Till the privileges of Romans had been progressively
extended to all the inhabitants of the empire, an important
distinction was preserved between Italy and the provinces.
The former was esteemed the centre of public unity, and the
firm basis of the constitution. Italy claimed the birth, or
at least the residence, of the emperors and the senate. The
estates of the Italians were exempt from taxes, their
persons from the arbitrary jurisdiction of governors. Their
municipal corporations, formed after the perfect model of
the capital, were intrusted, under the immediate eye of the
supreme power, with the execution of the laws. From the foot
of the Alps to the extremity of Calabria, all the natives of
Italy were born citizens of Rome. Their partial distinctions
were obliterated, and they insensibly coalesced into one
great nation, united by language, manners, and civil
institutions, and equal to the weight of a powerful empire.
The republic gloried in her generous policy, and was
frequently rewarded by the merit and services of her adopted
sons. Had she always confined the distinction of Romans to
the ancient families within the walls of the city, that
immortal name would have been deprived of some of its
noblest ornaments. Virgil was a native of Mantua; Horace was
inclined to doubt whether he should call himself an Apulian
or a Lucanian; it was in Padua that an historian was found
worthy to record the majestic series of Roman victories. The
patriot family of the Catos emerged from Tusculum; and the
little town of Arpinum claimed the double honor of producing
Marius and Cicero, the former of whom deserved, after
Romulus and Camillus, to be styled the Third Founder of
Rome; and the latter, after saving his country from the
designs of Catiline, enabled her to contend with Athens for
the palm of eloquence.
"The provinces of the empire (as they have been described in
the preceding chapter) were destitute of any public force,
or constitutional freedom. In Etruria, in Greece, and in
Gaul, it was the first care of the senate to dissolve those
dangerous confederacies, which taught mankind that, as the
Roman arms prevailed by division, they might be resisted by
union. Those princes whom the ostentation of gratitude or
generosity permitted for a while to hold a precarious
sceptre were dismissed from their thrones as soon as they
had performed their appointed task of fashioning to the yoke
the vanquished nations. The free states and cities which had
embraced the cause of Rome were rewarded with a nominal
alliance, and insensibly sunk into real servitude. The
public authority was everywhere exercised by the ministers
of the senate and of the emperors, and that authority was
absolute and without control. But the same salutary maxims
of government, which had secured the peace and obedience of
Italy, were extended to the most distant conquests. A
nation of Romans was gradually formed in the provinces, by
the double expedient of introducing colonies, and of
admitting the most faithful and deserving of the provincials
to the freedom of Rome."
CHAPTER VII
THE CRISIS--THE ATTEMPTED REFORMS OF THE GRACCHI
"Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide,
In the strife of Truth with Falsehood, for the good or evil side;
Some great cause, God's new Messiah, offering each the bloom or blight,
Parts the goats upon the left hand, and the sheep upon the right,
And the choice goes by forever 'twixt that darkness and that light.
* * * * *
"Backward look across the ages and the beacon-moments see
That, like peaks of some sunk continent, jut through Oblivion's sea;
Not an ear in court or market for the low foreboding cry
Of those Crises, God's stern winnowers, from whose feet earth's chaff must fly;
Never shows the choice momentous till the judgment hath passed by.
"Careless seems the great Avenger; history's pages but record
One death-grapple in the darkness 'twixt old systems and the Word;
Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne,--
Yet that scaffold sways the future, and, behind the dim unknown,
Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own."
--Lowell's _The Present Crisis_.
The critical days of any contest are seldom those of its final
culmination. The end has generally been long foreshadowed. The time at
which the last stand for the Roman liberties was made was not during
the civil wars of the last century before Christ, but at the time of
the attempted reforms of the previous century. The years in which the
great crisis of the Roman republic was reached were those from 134 to
121 B.C., the years marked by the activities of the Gracchi.
The story of the Gracchi constitutes one of the strangest, grandest,
and saddest stories in the whole course of history. It is a double
story of sacrifice, suffering, and untiring labor; of temporary
success, of ultimate death and failure--but a failure which stands
forth more glorious in the pages of history than the greatest
successes of others. It is the story of two brothers, possessed of
wealth and of high rank and connections, in the richest and most
powerful country of the world--men to whom was open either an easy
path along the old established road to the highest honors of the Roman
state or the life of luxurious ease so eagerly embraced by the
majority of the rich young Romans of that day. Casting aside both
these choices, and recognizing the dangers of their native state,
these brothers sacrificed all in an attempt to restore to Rome those
conditions which in the past had built up her greatness, and to secure
a redress of those conditions which had made the status of the great
mass of the citizens of the "Mistress of the World" hardly superior to
that of the very serfs. It is a story of the most aggravated
selfishness and relentless hatred on the part of those favored few
whose special and illegal interests were threatened by the attacks of
the young reformers. It is also, unfortunately, to too great an extent
a story of ingratitude and cowardice on the part of those for whose
interest Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus sacrificed themselves in vain.
The Gracchi were fortunate in having as father one of those Romans
who still retained the Roman virtues of an earlier age,--patriotism,
bravery, and honor. Not only had the administration of the elder
Gracchus of the offices of consul and censor at Rome been free from
corruption, but his administration of the governorship of the Province
of Ebro had been of great service to his native country and had,
furthermore, endeared his memory to the Spaniards themselves.
The mother of the Gracchi was Cornelia, daughter of Africanus Scipio,
the greatest Roman hero of the previous generation. Of the twelve sons
and one daughter born of this union, only the daughter and two sons
lived to maturity. The two surviving sons were the first born,
Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, born about 166 B.C., and his brother
Gaius, nine years younger.
Few young Romans were afforded the opportunity of such close relations
and intercourse with the leading men of Rome as was Tiberius Gracchus
in his early years. Even in boyhood his mind seems to have been of a
serious cast, more interested in study and speculation than in the
pleasures customary in youth.
In his father's house, which was to a large extent a common meeting
place for all that was best in Roman society, he frequently heard the
leading men of the city lament the disappearance from the country
districts of the free citizens, and the attendant evils which seemed
to be hovering over the Roman state. But what to his elders appeared
lamentable principally on account of its effect upon the recruiting of
the Roman legions, and consequently upon the control of Rome over her
provinces and her foreign influence, was to young Tiberius an evil of
a very different and more serious character. To him alone of this
group did this condition appear as a great moral and social wrong--a
wrong, moreover, whose effect would not be limited to the character of
the soldiers in the Roman army, but which, if not remedied, would,
like a cancer, eat out the very life of the Roman republic. Another
difference was that those evils which brought forth from others
languid, pessimistic, speculative reflections roused in Tiberius
Gracchus the determination to action.
Hardly was the boyhood of Tiberius over when his public life began.
"Scarcely had Tiberius assumed the garb of manhood when he
was elected into the college of augurs. At the banquet given
to celebrate his installation, App. Claudius, the chief of
the senate, offered him his daughter's hand in marriage.
When the proud senator returned home, he told his wife that
he had that day betrothed their daughter. 'Ah,' she cried,
'she is too young; it had been well to wait a while--unless,
indeed, young Gracchus is the man.' Soon after his marriage
he accompanied Scipio to Carthage, where he was the first to
scale the walls.
"The personal importance of Gracchus was strengthened by the
marriage of Scipio with his only sister. But this marriage
proved unhappy. Sempronia had no charms of person, and her
temper was not good; Scipio's austere manners were little
pleasing to a bride; nor were children born to form a bond
of union between them." (Liddell's _History of Rome_.)
A brief taste of military life was added to the experience and
training of Tiberius Gracchus when he served, while a mere youth, in
the capture of Carthage.
His thirtieth year was spent as a quæstor in Spain. While traveling to
and from this province he was forcibly impressed by the industrial and
economic conditions in Etruria. Throughout this rich and extensive
territory the small freeholder seemed to have entirely disappeared,
and the land was now occupied by large estates cultivated by slaves.
Tiberius returned to Rome just as the so-called "slave war" in Sicily
broke out. This war not only called attention to the vast number and
the depths of wretchedness of the slaves already in Italy and the
adjoining island, but it also served to emphasize the perilous
condition of a state whose foundation rested upon such a smoldering
volcano.
In this servile war the slaves throughout large portions of the island
of Sicily arose in a body, murdered those of their masters who were
not fortunate enough to escape, and selected a Syrian juggler as their
king. A Greek slave, named Achæus, proved not only a skillful
commander in the field but also a capable organizer, and he soon
mustered a large army containing both slaves and free laborers.
Another leader, Cleon, a Sicilian slave, captured the important city
of Agrigentum. The united forces defeated the Roman prætor Lucius
Hypsæus, and temporarily drove the Romans out of Sicily.
It was not until after three years of continued warfare, after the
Romans had suffered numerous defeats and great armies had been sent
under three different Roman consuls, that the rebellion in Sicily was
finally put down.
Upon his return from Spain, and at the breaking out of the servile
war, Tiberius Gracchus had not hesitated to freely express his
feelings as to the cause of the existing evils, and as to the
necessary remedies for their amelioration, and it was not long before
that part of the Roman people who were dissatisfied with existing
conditions turned to Gracchus as the only logical leader for the
reform movement. As his views on the cause of the evils and the
general character of the remedies which he proposed had been shown to
the people by his speeches, Tiberius was elected tribune in 134 B.C.,
taking office on December 10 of that year.
The reforms proposed by Tiberius Gracchus in the bill presented before
the comitia tributa, almost immediately after his installation as
tribune, were entirely of an economic character. In the field of mere
political rights nothing more remained to be asked by the lowest of
the Roman citizens; their pitiable condition was the result of the
existing agrarian situation. The agrarian bill proposed by Tiberius
Gracchus, while a radical departure from existing conditions, was
neither illegal, confiscatory, nor unjust; it merely provided for a
reassumption on the part of the state of land long held illegally by
the "special interests" of the place and age.
The agrarian law of Tiberius Gracchus was in its main features merely
a revival of the Licinian agrarian law of 367 B.C. By the original law
(which for more than two centuries had been so flagrantly violated) it
had been provided that no head of a family should hold more than five
hundred jugera (a jugera being a little more than three fifths of an
acre) of the public land. Tiberius proposed to reënact this law, but
with the concession added that adult sons might hold each an
additional two hundred and fifty jugera; but not more than one
thousand jugera, in all, were to be held by any single family. Whoever
was unlawfully in possession of the public land was required to return
the same, above the permitted maximum, to the state; fair
compensation, however, was to be allowed for improvements made by the
holder of the land while it was in his possession.
The law further provided that all public lands were to be placed
under the control of three commissioners. This commission was to allot
the public land, in small parcels, to such poor citizens as might
apply for it. These new occupiers of the land were to hold it in
perpetuity as tenants of the state, paying a small annual rental.
These estates were to descend to the children of the holders, but were
not to be alienated, thus preventing the possibility of the land being
once again gathered together into large estates.
No valid objection could be made to the proposals of Tiberius
Gracchus, which were merely the righting of one of the worst of the
existing scandals of the Roman administration; a reform, moreover,
which was to be carried out in such a manner as to give to the
wrongdoers far greater consideration than that to which they were
entitled. The law, however, dealt a heavy blow against the richest and
most powerful class in Rome. The greater Roman capitalists had so long
held possession, in utter defiance of the law, of the great bulk of
the public lands of the state that their wrongful possessions had, in
their eyes, ripened into a rightfully vested interest.
An indirect method of attack has always been used by the opponents of
Gracchus, both by the opponents of his own day and by those historians
who have attempted to assail his memory. A recent historian,
unfriendly both to Gracchus and to his democratic reforms (Ferrero),
refers to this bill as follows:
"The bill was very favorably received by the peasants and
the small proprietors. It appears also to have given great
satisfaction to the clients, freemen, and artisans, who made
up the proletariat of the metropolis; they fell into the not
unnatural mistake--often made by the poor before and
since--of regarding the greed of the rich, and the
indifference of the government, as a sufficient explanation
of their own distress."
The ancient historian Plutarch thus refers to this contest:
"Tiberius defending the matter, which of itself was good and
just, with such eloquence as might have justified an evil
cause, was invincible; and no man was able to argue against
him to confute him, when, speaking in the behalf of the poor
citizens of Rome (the people being gathered round about the
pulpit for orations), he told them, that the wild beasts
through Italy had their dens and caves of abode, and the men
that fought, and were slain for their country, had nothing
else but air and light, and so were compelled to wander up
and down with their wives and children, having no
resting-place nor house to put their heads in. And that the
captains do but mock their soldiers when they encourage them
in battle to fight valiantly for the graves, the temples,
their own houses, and their predecessors. For, said he, of
such a number of poor citizens as there be, there cannot a
man of them show any ancient house or tomb of their
ancestors, because the poor men go to the wars, and are
slain for the rich men's pleasures and wealth; besides, they
falsely call them lords of the earth, where they have not a
handful of ground that is theirs. These and such other like
words being uttered before all of the people with such
vehemency and truth, so moved the common people withal, and
put them in such a rage, that there was no adversary of his
able to withstand him. Therefore, leaving to contradict and
deny the law by argument, the rich men put all their trust
in Marcus Octavius, colleague and fellow-tribune in office,
who was a grave and wise young man, and Tiberius' very
familiar friend. That the first time they came to him, to
oppose him against the confirmation of this law, he prayed
them to hold him excused, because Tiberius was his very
friend. But, in the end, being compelled to it through the
great number of the rich men that were importunate with him,
he withstood Tiberius' law, which was enough to overthrow
it."
A more deep-dyed treachery than that to which Marcus Octavius at
length consented is, fortunately, but seldom met with in history. It
was a treachery not only to one of his closest friends, not only to
the class which he represented and the voters who had elected him, but
also to the character and traditions of the very office which he held.
The creation of the office of tribune had been the first great victory
won by the plebeians; the duties of those holding this office had been
to protect the lives and property, the rights and the liberties, of
the weaker class in the community--the plebeians.
To make it possible for the tribunes to give such protection, the veto
had been granted to them. From the time when this power had first been
secured by the tribunes down to the day when the agrarian law of
Tiberius Gracchus came before the comitia tributa for its final
decision, the veto power of the Roman tribune had been the greatest
bulwark of the poor man of Rome. Now, in the greatest crisis of the
long contest in Roman history of human rights against class
privileges, this power was to be the weapon by which a traitor was to
secure the victory of the rich landowners over the great body of the
Roman citizens.
The day upon which the bill was to come before the comitia tributa
found the Forum crowded with what was probably the largest number of
citizens who, up to this time, had ever attended a meeting of this
assembly. Tiberius Gracchus made his speech in favor of the law, which
speech was received with great applause. The moment of his great
triumph was apparently just at hand. The clerk was about to read the
words of the bill, before it was voted upon, when the renegade tribune
Marcus Octavius stood up and forbade the clerk to read the bill.
Gracchus was surprised and, for the time, helpless. After much bitter
discussion, the meeting was adjourned; but Gracchus gave notice that
he would take up his bill again upon the next regular meeting day of
the comitia tributa.
The cowardly treachery of his colleague, instead of discouraging
Tiberius Gracchus, merely spurred him on to greater efforts. His
policy, formerly in the main a conciliatory one, now became militant.
In retaliation for the veto of Octavius he too made use of this power.
Indeed, a more thorough and effective use of this power than that made
by Gracchus at this time can hardly be imagined. A veto was put upon
the exercise of any of his functions by any of the Roman officials;
even the treasury was shut up and the courts of justice discontinued.
As the great landowners had now forfeited all claims to consideration
on account of the methods which they had adopted, the compensation
clauses were struck out of the bill, which in its amended form simply
provided that the state should resume possession of all lands held in
contravention of the Licinian Law. Even in this amended form there was
nothing revolutionary about the bill; it was merely the reënactment of
a law which already existed, and should have been in operation.
On the second day when the bill came before the comitia an attempt was
again made to read the law, and this was again prevented by the veto
of the tribune Octavius. Party feeling by this time ran so high that a
riot seemed inevitable. Trouble was for the time averted by an
agreement to refer the matter to the Senate.
A few months before, Gracchus' name would have possessed great
influence in the Senate, and, furthermore, a number of the
senators--the most patriotic and clear sighted, who saw the dangers
with which Rome was confronted--had in the beginning sympathized with
Gracchus in the objects which he sought. By this time, however,
Gracchus had lost all the sympathy and support which he had ever
possessed in this direction. This is sometimes explained by saying
that Tiberius Gracchus had alienated all the conservative elements in
his support by the intemperance of his actions. Such an explanation
cannot stand the scrutiny of history. The proposals and objects of
Gracchus were never anything but moderate--never anything more than
the claim that the existing laws must be enforced. The methods of
Gracchus were not only strictly legal but also strictly conventional
and usual, until the disgraceful tactics of his opponents constrained
him to more forcible action.
At this time Tiberius Gracchus, meeting only reproaches from the
senators, who were enraged at him because he had called attention to
and made an issue of a state of political corruption from which their
class had benefited for generations, returned to the comitia. Upon his
return the meeting was again dissolved; but before it had adjourned
Gracchus gave notice that he would still again bring up his measure
before the comitia tributa, on its next regular meeting day, and that
if Marcus Octavius again interposed the veto power to prevent a vote
being taken upon the bill, he would move the people that Octavius be
deposed as tribune.
Before the day for the next meeting of the comitia tributa arrived,
Gracchus appears to have made every effort to induce his colleague and
former friend to recede from his position. All efforts in this
direction, however, proving ineffectual, Gracchus immediately upon the
assembling of the comitia moved that the tribune Marcus Octavius be
removed from office. Of the first seventeen tribes to vote, each, by a
unanimous or practically unanimous vote, was in favor of the
deposition of Octavius. Before the vote of the eighteenth tribe was
taken, Gracchus made a final appeal to Octavius to withdraw his
opposition. After some hesitation Octavius refused, and the vote of
the next tribe furnished the required majority for his deposition.
For the first time in a popular government the principle of the right
of the people to recall an unworthy public official had been put into
practical operation. A more fitting occasion for this action can
hardly be imagined.
The action of Tiberius Gracchus in adopting this innovation has been
bitterly denounced, and as strongly defended. One of the liberal
historians refers to this action as follows:
"These acts of Tiberius Gracchus are commonly said to have
been the beginning of revolution at Rome; and the guilt of
it is accordingly laid at his door. And there can be no
doubt that he was guilty in the sense that a man is guilty
who introduces a light into some chamber filled with
explosive vapour, which the stupidity or malice of others
has suffered to accumulate. But, after all, too much is made
of this violation of constitutional forms and the sanctity
of the tribunate. The first were effete, and all regular
means of renovating the republic seemed to be closed to the
despairing patriot, by stolid obstinacy sheltering itself
under the garb of law and order. The second was no longer
what it had been--the recognised refuge and defence of the
poor. The rich, as Tiberius in effect argued, had found out
how to use it also. If all men who set the example of
forcible infringement of law are criminals, Gracchus was a
criminal. But in the world's annals he sins in good company;
and when men condemn him, they should condemn Washington
also. Perhaps his failure has had most to do with his
condemnation. But if ever a revolution was excusable this
was; for it was carried not by a small party for small
aims, but by national acclamations, by the voices of
Italians who flocked to Rome to vote. How far Gracchus saw
the inevitable effects of his acts is open to dispute. But
probably he saw it as clearly as any man can see the future.
Because he was generous and enthusiastic, it is assumed that
he was sentimental and weak, and that his policy was guided
by impulse rather than reason. There seems little to sustain
such a judgment other than the desire of writers to
emphasise a comparison between him and his brother." (A. H.
Beesly, in _The Gracchi, Marius and Sulla_.)
The procedure adopted by Gracchus on this occasion was unknown to the
law, but it is hard to say that it was against the law. If this action
was unconstitutional, and revolutionary, so had been every change
which had ever been made in the fundamental principles of Roman public
law. The truth of the matter was that Rome had neither a written
constitution nor any law governing the method by which its fundamental
law might be changed. Rome, in this respect, was constantly in a
position similar to that in which the state of Rhode Island found
herself in 1841. The old colonial charter, which after the separation
from England had been continued in force as a state constitution, was
no longer suitable for existing conditions, and there was a general
feeling among the inhabitants of the state that the old charter must
give way to a new state constitution. A difficulty, however, here
presented itself in the fact that the old colonial charter, having
been granted by royal authority, contained no provision as to its
amendment by act of the people. In this situation the people of the
state were compelled to go outside of their organic law, and,
disregarding the old charter, to adopt a new constitution and form of
government. All this was not accomplished, however, without much
confusion and an incipient civil war.
Similarly situated, Tiberius Gracchus was now obliged to go beyond the
letter of the existing law, and to vindicate the underlying principle
of Roman law that the duty of the tribune was the protection of the
rights of the people, by introducing a new political expedient into
the scheme of Roman government.
Upon the deposition of Octavius the agrarian law of Gracchus was
immediately passed by acclamation. Three commissioners were appointed
to carry out the provisions of the bill--Tiberius Gracchus, his
brother Gaius, and Appius Claudius, the father-in-law of Tiberius
Gracchus.
For a time the success and popularity of Gracchus was at its zenith;
the commissioners, appointed to allot the land, energetically
prosecuted the work, and the great landowners became more and more
bitter as they saw their illegal gains about to be wrested from them.
One difficulty in the carrying out of the agrarian law was due to the
fact that the poverty of the mass of the Roman citizens was such that
very few who desired to secure an allotment of land were possessed of,
or could secure, the necessary money to stock the new farms and to
erect the necessary buildings. When, therefore, at this crisis, it was
learned that Attalus Philometor, the recently deceased king of
Pergamus, in Asia Minor, had made the Roman people his heirs,
bequeathing to them both his kingdom and all his private lands and
treasures, Gracchus grasped at this opportunity to overcome the
difficulty experienced by the agrarian commission. He proposed a law
providing that all the money so received should be used to furnish
the necessary stock for those to whom the public land was assigned.
About the same time another law was enacted, apparently not proposed
by Tiberius Gracchus, providing that the Agrarian Commission (called
the triumviri) should have final jurisdiction in all controversies
over the question as to whether any particular piece of land was
public or private land. The capitalistic party, setting an example
which has been so often followed in our own country and in our own
day, now attempted to divert the issue from the reforms being put into
operation through the energy of Gracchus, by personal attacks upon the
tribune himself; he was accused of having received a purple robe and
diadem from the envoy of the late king of Pergamus; of having violated
the Roman constitution; of desiring to make himself king over Rome.
Only vindictive partisanship could find any basis upon which to allege
the truth of any of these charges except perhaps that of a technical
violation of the Roman constitution in the deposition of Octavius. The
extreme party in the Senate, led by Publius Scipio Nasica, were openly
plotting the death of Tiberius Gracchus, either by assassination or
by judicial proceedings, as soon as his term of office should expire.
The violent position taken by his opponents clearly showed to Tiberius
Gracchus that both his reforms and his life were in danger. It was
evident that neither the agrarian reforms nor the life of Gracchus
would be safe after he had ceased to hold the office of tribune, and
the course of events finally drove Tiberius into becoming a candidate
for reëlection. To strengthen his hold upon the people he prepared
three new laws. The first law diminished the required period of
military service; the second law changed the procedure in the higher
courts of law, and permitted the jurors to be selected from all
persons possessing a certain amount of property, instead of (as
previously) restricting the selection to members of the Senate; the
third law created the right of appeal from the courts of law to the
assembly of the people in all cases.
The scenes at the election in June, 133 B.C., when Tiberius Gracchus
for the second time came before the comitia tributa as a candidate for
election as tribune, were among the most tumultuous in all Roman
political history. Upon the first day of voting the first tribe gave
its vote for the reëlection of Tiberius Gracchus; upon this, his
opponents immediately raised a protest, declaring that no one could be
twice, in succession, elected to the office of tribune. The debate on
this question developed into such a tumult that any further business
became an impossibility, and the meeting was adjourned until the next
day.
The friends of Tiberius were now thoroughly alarmed for his safety. A
large throng accompanied him to his home, and kept watch before his
doors all night. Before going to the comitia tributa in the morning
Tiberius is reported to have told his friends that if he considered
himself in danger, during the day's proceedings, and thought it
necessary for his friends to repel force by force, he would raise his
hand to his head. No means seems to have been adopted, however, for
any concerted or effectual resistance, and none of his friends who
attended the meeting of the comitia tributa went armed.
On the morning of the second meeting of the comitia tributa the Senate
also met close by in the temple of Faith. Nasica demanded of the
consul Scævola, who presided, to take steps to prevent the reëlection
of Tiberius Gracchus. The consul refused to interfere. At this stage
one of the senators, Fulvius Flaccus, who was friendly to Tiberius,
hastened from the temple to inform him that his death was about to be
resolved upon by the Senate. Upon hearing this news the friends of
Gracchus began hastily to arm themselves with staves, for the
protection of their leader, and Gracchus gave the agreed signal by
raising his hand to his head.
Seizing every opportunity to attack the motives of Gracchus, his
opponents raised the cry that he was asking for a crown, and this
report was carried into the Senate. Nasica, the bitterest of the
enemies of Gracchus and of his reforms, shouted, "The consul is
betraying the republic! Those who would save their country, follow
me!" and rushed out from the meeting of the Senate. He was followed by
many of the senators, and by their slaves and adherents, those who
were not already armed breaking up the benches to make clubs for
themselves. The followers of Gracchus, without any organization among
themselves, were unable to offer effectual resistance to the attack,
and soon fled in all directions. Tiberius Gracchus attempted to take
refuge in the temple of Jupiter, but the priests closed the doors
against him, and, stumbling over a bench, he was killed by repeated
blows on the head before he could rise. In this riot more than three
hundred of the followers of Gracchus were killed by clubs, or by being
driven over the wall at the edge of the Tarpeian rock. The hatred
toward Tiberius Gracchus, on the part of the special interests of the
time, did not end with his murder. Gaius Gracchus was refused
permission, which he sought, to bury his brother, and it was decreed
by the Senate that the bodies of Tiberius Gracchus and his followers
should be thrown into the Tiber before daybreak on the following
morning.
Very divergent views have been taken of the conduct of Tiberius
Gracchus and that of his opponents by different classes of historians.
Historians, equally with politicians, inevitably fall into one of the
two classes into which mankind is divided, the class of the radicals
on the one hand, or of the conservatives on the other; into the class
of those who favor progress and the recognition of the supreme right
of manhood, or into the class of those who wish to keep things as they
are, and worship before the shrine of vested interests. No single
incident in history better serves to bring out the bias of the
historian than does that of the efforts of Tiberius Gracchus in behalf
of his agrarian law. No historian can write this page of Roman history
without throwing open for the inspection of the world the inmost
workings of his mind and sympathies. That class of historians who can
see more pathos in the execution of King Louis XVI than in the
combined misery of the downtrodden millions who lived and died in
France under the two centuries of Bourbon misrule, have attempted to
cast upon Tiberius Gracchus the stigma of a demagogue, of a reckless
leader, of a violator of his country's most fundamental laws; while
the conduct of the leaders of the conservative party, who did not
hesitate at the crisis to resort even to murder rather than surrender
their unlawful profits, is excused as being rendered necessary by the
violence of Tiberius Gracchus.
Yet there are few prominent characters in whose public actions the
impartial critic can find so little to criticize as in that of the
greatest of all Roman tribunes--Tiberius Gracchus. At the outset the
whole policy of Gracchus was moderate and even conciliatory, and it
was only the unyielding selfishness of the great landowners which
forced him into a position where he must either surrender all for
which he was fighting or adopt a more vigorous plan of campaign;
which, finally, against his will, compelled him to adopt those tactics
for which he has been so severely censured by certain historians.
The legality of the deposition of Octavius has already been discussed.
It only remains to consider the action of Tiberius Gracchus in
presenting himself as a candidate for reëlection as tribune. Of the
vital necessity for this action, both to secure the enforcement of the
agrarian law and the personal safety of Tiberius himself, there can be
no doubt. It must be admitted, however, that this by itself is not a
sufficient defense of the action of Gracchus on this occasion. The
fundamental principles of government in any country cannot, generally,
be safely violated merely to meet a temporary exigency. The worst
possible government is generally better, for those who are to live
under it, than anarchy; and the condition of a country where laws can
be habitually broken with impunity is but one step from that of a
country where no laws exist. The breaking of a law with good motives
is often more disastrous than the breaking of it with bad intentions;
because in a former case an example is set which, being looked upon
with approval by a large class of the best people in the community, is
apt to furnish a precedent for future violations of the law, with the
worst motives and for the most dangerous purposes. No true republic
can long continue to exist unless a sense of reverence for and
obedience to law is bred into the mass of its citizens. The right of
overthrowing a corrupt government and of establishing a new civic
system must ever reside with the people; but such a right must be
resorted to only as an extreme, exceptional, and desperate remedy, and
the frequent recurrence of revolutions and rebellions in a republic
results in a substitution of the rule of force for the peaceful rule
of the majority, and is inconsistent with any true idea of democracy.
If, then, Tiberius Gracchus had attempted to override the fundamental
law of Rome for the purpose of obtaining some temporary personal or
partisan advantage he might well have deserved the attacks which have
been made upon his memory. Tiberius Gracchus, however, violated no
provision of the Roman constitution. No evidence exists that there was
ever any law making a Roman tribune ineligible for reëlection.
The prohibition would seem to have arisen from long-continued custom
rather than from law, and to have been of a character not unsimilar to
the so-called "conventions of the English Constitution," or to the
rule in this country that no man shall be elected for a third term as
President. If a law declaring a tribune to be ineligible for
reëlection was ever enacted in Rome (and with the absence of a full
list of Roman laws this is a point on which absolute certainty is
impossible) it was, in all probability, of a directory rather than a
mandatory character. Such was the character of all Roman laws relative
to the qualification of officers. Thus, the Roman laws provided a
regular order in which the principal offices at Rome should be held,
and prohibited any person holding any office until he had held all
those named before it on the list, and until he had reached a certain
specified age.
This law, while in the main followed, was frequently disregarded. The
violations were in the main chargeable to the very class at Rome that
was most bitter in the denunciation of Tiberius Gracchus for offering
himself as a candidate for reëlection as tribune. Under the existing
political conditions at Rome no great blame could be attached to an
occasional disregard either of the law regulating the qualifications
for office or the law, or custom, relative to the reëlection of a
tribune. It is only on this one occasion in Roman history that the
violation of either of these laws was denounced as an attack on the
Roman constitution. Even in the exciting days preceding the passage of
the Licinian Laws the tribunes Licinius and Sextius were reëlected
year after year, without the legality of their election being
questioned. Only ten years after the death of Tiberius Gracchus the
reëlection to the office of tribune of his brother, Gaius Gracchus,
was permitted. It is a striking comment upon the fairness of some of
the historians who attack Tiberius Gracchus for his alleged violation
of the law that they are able to find excuses for the action of that
branch of the senatorial party whose members were so unwilling to
surrender to the state their illegal profits that they resorted to
force to break up a meeting of the comitia tributa and to murder
Gracchus and three hundred of his adherents.
The years which intervened between the tribuneship of Tiberius
Gracchus and that of his brother Gaius were filled with internal
factional discord at Rome, but without any decisive results. Each
party, in turn, was able to secure revenge upon its opponents, in the
conflict connected with the death of Tiberius Gracchus. First, the
popular party was successful in compelling Nasica to retire from
Italy. Next, in 132 B.C., the Senate gave to the consuls a commission
to inquire into the actions of those who had supported Tiberius
Gracchus. By means of this commission the aristocratic party was
enabled to bring about the execution of some of the partisans of
Gracchus and the exile of others.
For the time the leadership of the popular party had passed to C.
Papirius Carbo, a man possessed both of the ability and the vices of
the successful demagogue. He was one of those politicians who are
always to be found in the forefront of every movement for liberty or
reform, and who, by their hypocrisy and selfishness, do more to bring
discredit upon the principles they champion than can possibly be done
by the ablest of the opponents of such principles. No greater contrast
can be imagined than is to be found in a comparison between Tiberius
Gracchus and Carbo. In the case of the former we see a devotion to
principle and to humanity which not even the fear of death could
alter; in the case of Carbo, on the contrary, we can discover nothing
but a striving for selfish ends and personal advancement. He appeared
as a radical among radicals when this attitude seemed to offer the
shortest road to fame and fortune; and with equal facility he became
the most abject tool of the senatorial party when such a change of
position seemed most likely to result to his personal benefit.
Being elected a tribune, Carbo set himself to win the favor of the
people by new popular legislation. He introduced and secured the
passage of a bill extending the use of the ballot into the legislative
assemblies of the people. His next measure, one to formally authorize
the reëlection of tribunes, was defeated. Gaius Gracchus made his
first public speech in support of this measure.
The work of the Agrarian Commission, in the meantime, had been
progressing in spite of the murder of Tiberius Gracchus and the
obstacles which the great landowners were constantly throwing in the
way of the commission. The Roman census shows that in the six years
from 131 to 125 B.C. the number of burgesses was increased by
seventy-six thousand; this increase was almost entirely due to the
operation of the agrarian law, and the work of the commission.
The vacancy in the Agrarian Commission made by the murder of Tiberius
Gracchus had been first filled by the election of P. Licinius Crassus,
father-in-law of Gaius Gracchus. Upon the death of Crassus, and of
Appius Claudius a few years later, these commissioners were succeeded
by Carbo and Fulvius Flaccus, the latter being the senator who had
attempted to warn Tiberius Gracchus of his danger, on the day of his
death.
Carbo, for the time the guiding spirit of the commission, attempted to
win additional popularity by a vigorous policy in carrying out the
agrarian law. Energetic action along this line was undoubtedly needed,
as the great landowners had in many ways succeeded in blocking the
work of the commission. The policy of Carbo, however, was that of the
demagogue rather than that of the statesman, and the result of the
methods which he adopted was a reaction which, for a time, completely
put a stop to the work of the commission, split the popular party, and
created a new political party or faction whose existence had an
important influence upon the course of Roman political history during
the next two generations.
The first step taken by Carbo was the publication of a proclamation
calling for information against owners of public land who had not
voluntarily registered themselves as such. In theory such a proceeding
was undoubtedly a proper mode of procedure against the large holders
of public lands who were endeavoring to evade the agrarian law; but in
practice it resulted in a great deal of hardship. Many of the good
land titles throughout all Italy were without sufficient documentary
proof; and many landowners, whose land was private, were yet at a loss
for evidence to prove that their land was of this character when
information against them was filed with the commission.
The situation was a most delicate one, and one requiring the exercise
of the highest degree of honesty, tact, good judgment, and diligence.
None of these qualities was possessed by Carbo. The commission acted
in the most arbitrary manner and apparently declared a great deal of
private land to belong to the public. The injustice seems to have been
practiced not so much against the great landowners (Carbo appears even
as early as this to have been falling under the influence of the
aristocratic party) as against the small Latin and Italian landowners.
The result was that the Latins and Italians, who had been among the
truest of the adherents of Tiberius Gracchus, now became alienated
from the Roman popular party under the leadership of Carbo, and began
to come under the influence of the senatorial party.
Politics made strange bedfellows two thousand years ago as well as
now, and the new turn of the wheel of Roman politics brought in
Scipio Africanus as the head of the Latins and Italians, and working
in harmony with the Senate.
The first action taken by Scipio was to introduce and secure the
passage of a law taking away from the Agrarian Commission the judicial
power by which it was enabled to decide questions as to the public or
private character of lands and vesting such power in the consuls. This
judicial power was then vested in the consul C. Sempronius Tuditanus;
but he being soon sent to Illyria to conduct a military campaign
against the Iapydes, no person was left in Rome with the power to
settle questions of this character. The work of the Agrarian
Commission was now brought to a stop, and no further reassumption or
allotting of public lands could take place. Thus the great landowners
were finally successful in destroying the effect of the agrarian
legislation of Tiberius Gracchus.
As this result began to make itself manifest, so great criticism arose
against the action of Scipio that he felt called upon to announce that
he would explain and defend his actions both before the Senate and
before the people. In his speech before the Senate he carefully
evaded all reference to the case of the great landowners who still
continued illegally to hold large tracts of the public lands, and
proclaimed his purpose to be to protect the Latin and Italian farmers
whose small holdings of land were being wrongfully taken from them by
the actions of the Agrarian Commission. These small farmers, sympathy
for whom Scipio thus attempted to arouse, thus occupied the position
held by those widows and orphans who to-day appear so prominently
among the stockholders of all law-breaking corporations.
The speech of Scipio was naturally well received in the Senate; what
its reception would have been on the second day, before the people in
the Forum, is problematical. On the morning following his speech in
the Senate Scipio was found dead in his bed. It is one of the unsolved
mysteries of history whether Scipio died from natural causes or was
murdered. Nor is it more certain, if he was murdered, as to who his
murderers were. Strong suspicion was directed against Carbo, and that
hypocritical demagogue was driven into a temporary political
retirement, from which he emerged a few years later as one of the
most serviceable tools of the senatorial party.
The importance, ability, and character of Scipio Africanus have been
greatly over-praised by most historians. A. H. Beesly, however, in his
work _The Gracchi, Marius and Sulla_, gives a discriminating criticism
of this Roman general and statesman:
"He is usually extolled as a patriot who would not stir to
humour a Roman rabble, but who, when downtrodden honest
farmers, his comrades in the wars, appealed to him, at once
stepped into the arena as their champion. In reality he was
a reactionist who, when the inevitable results of those
liberal ideas which had been broached in his own circle
stared him in the face, seized the first available means of
stifling them. The world had moved too fast for him. As
censor, instead of beseeching the gods to increase the glory
of the State, he begged them to preserve it. Brave as a man,
he was a pusillanimous statesman. It was well for his
reputation that he died just then. Without Sulla's personal
vices he might have played Sulla's part as a politician, and
his atrocities in Spain as well as his remark on the death
of Tiberius Gracchus--words breathing the very essence of a
narrow swordsman's nature--showed that from bloodshed at all
events he would not have shrunk. It is hard to respect such
a man in spite of all his good qualities. Fortune gave him
the opportunity of playing a great part, and he shrank from
it. When the crop sprang up which he had himself helped to
sow, he blighted it. But because he was personally
respectable, and because he held a middle course between
contemporary parties, he has found favour with historians,
who are too apt to forget that there is in politics, as in
other things, a right course and a wrong, and that to
attempt to walk along both at once proves a man to be a weak
statesman, and does not prove him to be a great or good
man."
The fillers in, who had occupied the stage of Roman politics for the
years following the murder of Tiberius Gracchus, were now removed, and
the stage was being rapidly set for the second and final act of the
great historical tragedy of the Gracchi.
The political problems which confronted Rome at the time of the death
of Scipio rapidly reached such an acute state that it became evident
the solution of these problems, and the preservation of the Roman
republic, must be the work of a Man, not of a manikin or a demagogue.
At this crisis Rome was blessed with the best of fortune, only to be
immediately thereafter cursed with the worst of misfortune. The good
fortune consisted in the fact that at this time the man presented
himself for the work; the bad fortune arose from the refusal of Rome
to avail herself of his work.
The agitation of Carbo had added to the bitter contest between rich
and poor, and one perhaps still more bitter, at least temporarily,
between Romans and Italians. An attempt was made to reconcile the
differences between the Romans and Italians by means of a compromise,
by the terms of which the Italians were to consent to the carrying out
of the Agrarian Law, and in return were to be admitted to Roman
citizenship. This last proposal was viewed with great alarm by the
Roman proletariat, most of whom were by this time possessed of nothing
in the world except the rights and privileges of Roman citizenship,
and who saw that the value of such rights and privileges would be
greatly diminished by the great increase now proposed in the number of
those by whom such rights and privileges were to be enjoyed.
The Italians, on their side, delighted at the prospect of obtaining
these rights, began to come to Rome in great numbers. This migration
added fuel to the flame, and in 126 B.C. the tribune, Junius Pennus,
proposed an alien act by which foreigners were compelled to leave
Rome. The law was passed, with unpleasant consequences at a later
date. For the second time in his life Gaius Gracchus made a public
speech, on this occasion appearing on the losing side.
The following year Gaius Gracchus served as quæstor and was sent to
Sardinia under the consul Aurelius Orestes. The Senate, and the
oligarchical party in general, had by this time come to regard the
young Gaius Gracchus with mingled fear and suspicion, and in disregard
of the laws he was first ordered to remain a second year in Sardinia,
and later to remain a third year.
In the meantime, at Rome, events had been moving rapidly. Fulvius
Flaccus, the old friend of Tiberius Gracchus, had been elected consul
and had brought in a bill extending the franchise to all the Latin and
Italian allies. Shortly thereafter, before the bill had been voted
upon, Flaccus had been sent by the Senate upon foreign service, and
the bill was sidetracked. The disappointment at such a result on the
part of those who were denied the right of suffrage, after they had
believed it won, culminated in the rebellion of the Latin city of
Fregellæ. The force with which the city was reduced to submission, and
the severity with which the outbreak was punished, destroyed any
further thought on the part of the Latins and Italians of attempting
to secure their rights by force, but increased the silent discontent
of these people.
It was with these conditions existing at Rome that Gaius Gracchus
returned to the city after two and one-half years' absence in
Sardinia, defying the Senate by disobeying its order to finish out his
third year in the island.
The censors were in office at the time of the return of Gaius Gracchus
to Rome, and his enemies succeeded in having him summoned before them
immediately to answer for his alleged misconduct in leaving the post
to which he had been assigned by the Senate. It was hoped that the
censors could be induced to denounce him, which action would have
rendered him ineligible to hold public office. Gracchus, however, so
strongly defended himself in a speech to the people that the censors
did not dare take any action against him. In his speech he relied on
the well-established principle of the Roman law at that time, that the
Senate had no authority to compel him to serve as quæstor for a longer
period than one year. As to his own conduct in the exercise of the
office of quæstor he said, "No one can say that I have received a
penny in presents, or have put any one to charges on my own account.
The purse which I took out full I have brought back empty; though I
could name persons who took out casks filled with wine and brought
them home charged with money."
Upon his acquittal Gaius Gracchus became a candidate for the office of
tribune, and was elected, in spite of the most strenuous opposition of
the senatorial party and of the great landowners. However, the
opposition to him was so strong that, in the number of votes received,
he stood only fourth in the list of successful candidates.
Before entering upon the work of Gaius Gracchus as Roman tribune it is
admissible to stop for a moment to compare the characters, natures,
and abilities of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus. The general judgment of
history seems to assign a far higher place to Gaius Gracchus than to
his elder brother. How far such a view is correct is certainly
questionable. It is a view based largely upon the longer term of
office, the more spectacular reforms, and the more dramatic death of
the younger brother. Without detracting in any degree from the high
character and motives, and the wonderful ability, of Gaius Gracchus,
it may still be said that the higher niche in the temple of history
more properly belongs to Tiberius.
To Tiberius belongs that special honor which properly attaches itself
to the pioneer; perhaps, most of all, to the pioneer in the field of
political, social, or economic reforms. In the case of Tiberius, his
career was deliberately entered upon, as the result of his profound
study and keen observation, acting upon his naturally strong Roman
patriotism, hatred of wrong and oppression, and sympathy for humanity.
Whether the career of Gaius would have taken the direction which it
did but for the memory and influence of his brother, is problematical.
It is certain that the strongest motive which urged him onward in his
career as tribune was the all-mastering desire and determination to
avenge the murder of his brother, and to vindicate his memory by
carrying his measures through to a triumphant conclusion. It might
almost be said that the mainspring of the career of Tiberius was his
love for Rome, while the mainspring of the career of Gaius was his
love for his brother.
Tiberius Gracchus was the greater statesman; Gaius Gracchus the better
politician. Tiberius could see more clearly the great outlines of what
lay at a distance; Gaius could discern more exactly the details of
what was close at hand. If the political activities of the two
brothers could have been at the same time, each would have
supplemented the other, and it is possible that their combined efforts
might have been sufficient to secure the accomplishment of their
purposes.
In many respects Gaius Gracchus surpassed his brother in ability. The
younger brother is generally conceded to have been the greatest orator
who, up to that time, had ever lived in Rome; while Cicero, unfriendly
both to Gaius Gracchus personally and to his measures, lamented his
early death as a loss to Roman literature. It is also probable that
Gaius was superior to his brother in executive ability and in his
wonderful capacity for hard work. Against that must be set the greater
vision displayed by Tiberius Gracchus, in the character and details of
his proposed reforms. There was nothing in the measure proposed by the
elder Gracchus which conflicts with either justice, the soundest
principles of statesmanship, or of political economy; nor was there
any feature which seemed to have been inserted in those measures
merely as a bid for popularity or for votes.
Unfortunately, as much cannot be said for the reforms of Gaius
Gracchus; some of the provisions of the laws which he proposed were
unsound in theory and dangerous in practice, and were probably brought
forward merely as a bid for popularity. Provisions of this character
were not numerous enough, or important enough, to detract from the
general merit of the reforms proposed by Gaius Gracchus, but their
presence in his bills would seem to indicate on his part a less
comprehensive grasp of political principles than that possessed by his
brother.
It is a striking illustration of the irony which fate sometimes makes
use of, that the only part of the measures brought forward by the
Gracchi which were permitted to have a permanent influence upon Roman
life and history were the questionable measures of Gaius Gracchus.
In their temperaments Tiberius appears the calmer, Gaius possessing
the more fiery disposition. Tiberius, throughout his career, continued
to exercise the highest degree of control over both his feelings and
his actions. While fighting for principles which he believed essential
to the safety and welfare of Rome he manifested surprisingly little
animosity toward his opponents. Even in the deposition of Octavius he
seems to have been free from personal malice, as is indicated by his
attempt to secure a reconciliation with his brother tribune after
seventeen out of the necessary eighteen tribunes had voted in favor of
the deposition of the latter.
Gaius, embittered by the murder of his brother Tiberius, developed a
hatred toward his opponents which time never healed. Patience and
judgment led him to bide his time and prepare for the contest which he
considered as fated, and for the revenge upon which he was
determined.
His character might be fitly described in the words of Thomas Moore as
one of those
"Spirits of fire, that brood not long,
But flash resentment back for wrong;
And hearts where, slow but deep, the seeds
Of vengeance ripen into deeds."
The desire to avenge the death of his brother was indeed the central
idea of Gaius Gracchus throughout his whole political career. It is
when we look at his work from this viewpoint that much which appears
contradictory or obscure becomes easy to appreciate and understand.
One of the first steps taken by Gaius Gracchus in the reform campaign
undertaken by him was an attempt to divide the ranks of those who had
opposed his brother. The oligarchical party had for many generations
been composed of two different elements united for mutual protection,
but whose interests, in many respects, were mutually antagonistic. The
object of Gracchus was to break the political union between the two
factions by arousing the points of antagonism.
The two elements in the aristocratic party above referred to were the
senatorial families and the wealthy mercantile interests. The general
line of demarcation between the two classes was the distinction
between the aristocracy of money and the aristocracy of birth,
generally to be found wherever aristocracies exist. The senators, with
few exceptions, were recruited from the old families which had been
prominent in Rome for generations and even for centuries. The majority
of the members were of patrician descent, but the distinction between
patrician and plebeian was now of little, or no, practical importance.
Some of the senatorial families were wealthy, others were not; where
wealth was possessed it generally consisted of large landed estates.
All members of the Senate, whether rich or poor, were possessed of
valuable political rights and opportunities.
The other element of the aristocracy included the merchants and
speculators, who had control of the financial affairs of the city and
of the government, and who had been rapidly accumulating large
fortunes, during the period which had elapsed since the Punic Wars.
Gracchus played for the support of this element at the same time that
he assailed the power of the Senate.
By the terms of the Calpurnian Law, passed in 149 B.C., it had been
provided that all provincial magistrates accused of dishonesty in
their administration should be tried before the prætor peregrinus and
a jury selected from the Senate. It was now voted that the jury should
be taken not from the Senate but from a body of three hundred men
selected from all Roman citizens who possessed the amount of property
which entitled a person to be enrolled among the equites. From the
standpoint of judicial reform the fairness of this act could not be
questioned. However gross might have been the misgovernment of any
provincial Roman official, it was generally impossible to secure a
conviction before a senatorial jury. As one historian (Liddell) sums
up the matter:
"These courts had given little satisfaction. In all
important cases of corruption, especially such as occurred
in the provinces, the offenders were themselves senators.
Some of the judges had been guilty of like offences;
extortion was looked upon as a venial crime; prosecutions
became a trial of party strength, and the culprit was
usually absolved."
Equally important in the eyes of Gaius Gracchus, to the judicial
reform thus effected, was the effect which the law had toward raising
the equites to a position where, as an order, they would be a
formidable rival to the Senate. As a further bid for the support of
the moneyed aristocracy as against the old landed aristocracy and the
aristocracy of birth, Gracchus, in providing for the levying of new
taxes in the province of Asia, proposed the innovation of having the
tax farmed out at Rome, instead of in the province itself.
Another law did away with an old established abuse in the assignment
of provinces by the Senate to pro-consuls. Heretofore, each consul had
had his province assigned to him after his election, and the most
desirable provinces had therefore fallen to those toward whom the
Senate was the most friendly. It was now decreed that the provinces
for the two consuls for each year should be assigned before the
election of the consuls, and that the consuls should determine, either
by agreement or by lot, which of the two provinces should fall to
each.
The first of the economic measures of Gaius Gracchus was one to renew
and extend the agrarian law of his brother. In connection with this
law the right to decide whether land was public or private was once
more given to the Agrarian Commission, and provisions were also made
providing that new colonies should be founded in different parts of
Italy and also in the provinces. The carrying into execution of this
last provision was to be postponed until the following year. The
proposal to found colonies beyond the limits of Italy marked an
innovation both in Roman law and in the economic habits and customs of
the Romans.
Another law provided that the Roman government should undertake the
work of providing grain for its citizens; that every person possessing
the Roman franchise should have the right of purchasing grain from the
government at the price of six and a third asses per modius (the set
price being far under the market value); and that the losses sustained
in this grain trade should be taken out of the public treasury. Of all
the proposed reforms of the Gracchi this is the least defensible, and
the one which had the greatest influence upon the future. Lord
Macaulay, in the course of his speech made on the third reading of the
great English Reform Bill of 1832, said:
"The defect is not in the Reform Bill, but in the very
nature of government. On the physical condition of the great
body of people government acts not as a specific, but as an
alterative. Its operation is powerful, indeed, and certain,
but gradual and indirect. The end of government is not
directly to make the people rich, but to protect them in
making themselves rich--and a government which attempts more
than this is precisely the government which is likely to
perform less. Governments do not and cannot support the
people. We have no miraculous powers--and we have not the
rod of the Hebrew lawgiver--we cannot rain down bread on the
multitude from Heaven--we cannot smite the rock and give
them to drink. We can give them only freedom to employ their
industry to the best advantage, and security in the
enjoyment of what their industry has acquired."
The fundamental principles of the science of government and political
economy, so forcibly expressed by Lord Macaulay on this occasion, and
which must be both understood and applied by every successful
lawmaker, were throughout his career thoroughly realized by Tiberius
Gracchus, and were also generally appreciated by his younger brother.
On this occasion, however, Gaius Gracchus lost sight of, or recklessly
disregarded, all the basic principles of the true science of
government or economics. If it became the permanent policy of Rome to
provide food for a great proportion of her citizens, this could only
result finally in their permanent pauperization. The effect of this
law was certain to be the opposite of that sought by the agrarian laws
of the two Gracchi.
The object of the latter laws was to bring the Roman citizens, or as
many of them as possible, "back to the soil"; to develop once more
that race of hardy Roman peasants, whose arms had won the great
military victories of the Roman republic; and to reduce both the
numbers and the influence of the unemployed and dangerous proletariat
of the city. The law as to the sale of grain was not only certain to
have an influence in an exactly opposite direction to that which would
be exerted by the agrarian law, if this latter law could be put into
successful operation, but, more than this, the operation of the grain
law would render the success of the agrarian law far more difficult
and doubtful. The truth of the matter was that the success of the
agrarian law was endangered not only by the opposition of the
aristocracy but also by the present character of the Roman
proletariat. The course of events at Rome during the previous century
and a half had done much to destroy the stamina of the mass of the
Roman people; and a life of economic independence, as the result of
hard labor in the country, held less attractions for the majority of
this class than an easily secured, though meager, living in the city.
Anything which rendered life in Rome easier and more pleasant made it
so much the harder to induce Roman citizens to settle on the farms. No
legislation ever yet passed in Rome had aroused such immediate and
universal enthusiasm among the poorer classes at Rome as did this law
relative to the sale of grain.
This law, the worst of those proposed by the Gracchi, was destined to
have the greatest influence of any of those laws upon the course of
development of Roman history. It is a peculiar phenomenon to be
observed in the study of the psychology of dishonesty that while the
beneficiaries of any system of "graft" will fight to the last
extremity against any infringement upon their interests, sometimes
even, as was the case with French nobility at the time of the French
Revolution, carrying their resistance to such limits as to involve
themselves and their country in a common ruin; nevertheless, it is
often easy to induce these favored interests to assist in the
establishment of some other system of "graft" for the benefit of
certain classes of their opponents.
When a class has become so blinded to the true standard of right and
wrong, and of relative values, as to look upon special privileges for
the few against the many, and long-continued systems of dishonesty, as
"vested interests," it seems to be much easier for them to submit to
wrongful exactions from others than to cease from such wrongful
exactions themselves. Thus, in the case of the grain laws at Rome, the
aristocratic party, unrelenting in their opposition to the agrarian
laws of the Gracchi, which would put an end to long-continued robbing
of the state and go far toward building up again a class of free
yeoman landowners, without opposition acquiesced in the establishment
of a system of wholesale exploitation of the state for the maintenance
at the public expense of a lazy, worthless, and corrupt mob.
The fatal idea contained in the grain law, having obtained a foothold
in the Roman policy, rapidly developed. Fifty years after the law of
Gaius Gracchus it was necessary to limit the amount of grain which
could be purchased by any one citizen to five modii (about one and a
quarter bushels) per month; at this period forty thousand citizens
were regular purchasers of grain from the state. At a little later
period it was provided that five modii per month should be given
without charge to such citizens as might require it. At one time the
number of Roman citizens receiving this free allowance of grain rose
to three hundred and twenty thousand. The Emperor Augustus fixed the
maximum number to whom such allowance should be given at two hundred
thousand.
The permanent and continuing effect of these grain laws was to further
demoralize free labor in Italy and the character of the Roman citizen,
and to bring about a constantly increasing use of slave labor in
agriculture and of mercenaries in war.
One of the minor laws introduced by Gaius Gracchus was that which
fixed the minimum age for military service at seventeen, and provided
that the uniform and arms of the soldiers should be furnished by the
state.
A more important law, and one whose object was both to better economic
conditions and to strike at the power of the Senate, was a law calling
for large expenditures for the purpose of improving the roads through
Italy and building new roads, and which gave the complete management
of such work to the tribunes. Previously, the control of all public
works and improvements had been in the hands of the censors, subject
to the supervision of the Senate.
It was to the carrying out of this last-mentioned law that Gaius
devoted his greatest energies during the year of his first
tribuneship. The improvement of the commercial roads throughout Italy
was a work which all classes in the community must approve; and even
the enemies of Gracchus could but praise the executive ability and the
untiring energy with which he supervised the carrying out of the work.
The great system of internal improvements undertaken this year,
however, attracted to Rome a great multitude of people from all parts
of Italy, and tended to accentuate the bad feeling on the part of the
mass of the Roman citizens toward the Italians.
Gaius Gracchus was, for the time, the complete master of the political
situation. In the consular election of 123 B.C. he was able to secure
the election of C. Fannius, an old friend and supporter of his
brother, and the defeat of L. Opimius, the candidate of the senatorial
party. The position of tribune had now become of such dignity and
importance that Fulvius Flaccus, although he had already held the
office of consul, presented himself as a candidate for this office in
the election of this year.
Gracchus did not present himself as a candidate for reëlection on
account of the law, or custom, against reëlection to this office.
However, he was reëlected tribune this year, although the manner in
which his reëlection was brought about is not very clear to us. The
Roman historians say that as a sufficient number of candidates did not
present themselves to fill all the positions of tribunes, the comitia
tributa reëlected Gracchus under the law which gave them the right to
reëlect a tribune under such conditions.
This is the only occasion upon which we hear anything of this law, and
we have no knowledge as to when it was passed, or as to what were its
exact provisions. Some writers, of that school of historians hostile
to the work of Tiberius Gracchus, hint that a law authorizing the
reëlection of tribunes, under the peculiar circumstances above
mentioned, must have been enacted since the death of Tiberius
Gracchus. The theory of these writers involves the assumption of the
enactment of a law prohibiting the reëlection of tribunes, and then of
another law limiting the application of the first law, although we
have no evidence as to the passage of either of such laws, and no
evidence of their existence, except during the conflicts of the
Gracchi.
Upon his reëlection Gaius Gracchus, probably largely through the
influence of Flaccus, introduced a bill to extend the franchise to all
the Latin colonies and probably to all the citizens of the Italian
communities. The measure was that of a patriot and a statesman, but it
proved the undoing of its author. The measure failed to pass, and its
introduction destroyed a great part of the influence and popularity of
Gaius Gracchus.
Trouble and unpopularity next came to Gaius Gracchus from the
colonies which were to be founded during this year. Gracchus entered
upon this work in a conservative manner, starting out with only a few
colonies, at the outset sending only a few citizens to each colony and
admitting no citizen to any of the colonies unless he was of a
respectable character.
The Senate, seeing the power of Gaius Gracchus tottering, resolved to
destroy him politically by taking away his influence with the people.
To accomplish this purpose Marcus Livius Drusus, who also held the
office of tribune but who was a man of great wealth and affiliated
with the senatorial party, was put forward to outbid Gracchus for the
popular approval. In pursuance of this plan Drusus introduced a law
for the immediate settlement of twelve colonies, each colony to
consist of three thousand families, chosen without regard to their
character, and each colonist to hold his land rent free. The passage
of this Livian Law, as it was called, marked the close of the control
of Gaius Gracchus over the comitia tributa. In the elections of 122
B.C. L. Opimius, the enemy of Gracchus, was elected consul, and
neither Gracchus nor Flaccus was reëlected tribune.
The opponents of Gracchus, however, were not content with having
driven him from political power, but were resolved upon depriving him
of life as well. An excuse for an attack upon Gaius Gracchus was found
in a report from Carthage that the colony founded there by Gracchus
had been situated upon ground which had been cursed by Scipio at the
time of the destruction of Carthage. Acting upon this report, the
Senate directed the tribunes to call a meeting of the comitia tributa
for the purpose of revoking the law relative to the colony at
Carthage.
Upon the day of the meeting of the tribes one of the followers of the
consul Opimius, who had taken occasion to insult Gaius Gracchus, was
stabbed by some unknown person. The senatorial party now had the
opportunity to secure their prey, and immediately proceeded to
accomplish their purpose. The meeting of the comitia tributa was
broken up, and a meeting of the Senate called, at which Gracchus was
declared a public enemy and the consuls directed to take steps to
secure the safety of the republic.
It is outside the purpose of this work to go into the details of the
butchery of the next day in which Gaius Gracchus, Fulvius Flaccus, and
three thousand of their supporters lost their lives. The charge that
Gaius Gracchus had planned to do what Julius Cæsar was to do in the
next century, make himself dictator, or emperor, of Rome, is best
disproved by the absolute lack of any military preparations on the
part of Gracchus, even to the extent of securing his own safety when
he knew his life was in constant danger.
Although the friends of Gracchus and Flaccus had gathered together to
protect their leaders, they were without either proper arms or any
system of military organization, and were cut down, almost without
resistance, by the armed forces which had been collected by the
consul, Opimius. Mention might be made of the fruitless heroism
displayed by some of those friends of Gaius Gracchus who remained true
to him to the last; but the flashes of brightness were few, and the
day must ever be recorded as one of the darkest in all Roman history.
It was this day that marked the final failure of the last movement
which might have saved and rejuvenated the great Roman republic; it
was this day that showed the right of manhood was no longer the
highest right in Rome, and that the rule of special and vested
interests was now supreme.
The singleness of purpose and openness of character in Tiberius
Gracchus leave no opening for speculation or doubt as to the motives
from which he acted or the objects which he sought. Both the character
and the actions of Gaius Gracchus are more complex than those of his
brother, and many historians have doubted the disinterestedness of his
agitation for popular rights. The final summaries upon the character
of this man, of two recent historians, are as follows:
"The man who originates is always so far greater than the
man who imitates, and Caius only followed where his brother
led. The very dream which Caius told to the people shows
that his brother's spell was still on him, and his telling
it, together with his impetuous oratory and his avowed
fatalism, militates against the theory that Tiberius was
swayed by impulse and sentiment, and he by calculation and
reason. But no doubt he profited by experience of the past.
He had learned how to bide his time, and to think generosity
wasted on the murderous crew whom he had sworn to punish.
Pure in life, perfectly prepared for a death to which he
considered himself foredoomed, glowing with one fervent
passion, he took up his brother's cause with a double
portion of his brother's spirit, because he had thought more
before action, because he had greater natural eloquence, and
because being forewarned he was forearmed.
"In spite of the labours of recent historians, the
legislation of Caius Gracchus is still hard to understand.
Where the original authorities contradict each other, as
they often do, probable conjecture is the most which can be
attained, and no attempt will be made here to specify what
were the measures of the first tribunate of Caius, and what
of the second. The general scope and tendency of his
legislation is clear enough. It was to overthrow the
senatorial government, and in the new government to give the
chief share of the executive power to the mercantile class,
and the chief share of the legislative power to Italians.
These were his immediate aims. Probably he meant to keep all
the strings he thus set in motion in his own hands, so as to
be practically monarch of Rome. But whether he definitely
conceived the idea of monarchy, and, looking beyond his own
requirements, pictured to himself a successor at some future
time inheriting the authority which he had established, no
one can say." (Beesly.)
"It is clear that he did not wish to place the Roman
Republic on a new democratic basis, but that he wished to
abolish it, and introduce in its stead an absolute
despotism, in the form of an unlimited tribuneship for life.
Nor can he be blamed for it; as, though an absolute monarchy
is a great misfortune for a nation, it is a less misfortune
than an absolute oligarchy. Besides this, he was fired with
the passion for a speedy vengeance, and was in fact a
political incendiary--the author not only of the one hundred
years' revolution, which dates from him, but the founder of
that terrible urban proletariat which, utterly demoralized
by corn largesses and the flattery of the classes above it,
and at the same time conscious of its power, lay like an
incubus for five hundred years on the Roman commonwealth,
and only perished with it.
"Many of the fundamental maxims of Roman monarchy may be
traced to Gracchus. He first laid down that all the land of
subject communities was to be regarded as the private
property of the state--a maxim first applied to vindicate
the right of the state to tax the land and then to send out
colonies to it, which later became a fundamental principle
of law under the empire. He invented the tactics by which
his successors broke down the governing aristocracy, and
substituted strict and judicious administration for the
previous misgovernment. He first opened the way to a
reconciliation between Rome and the provinces, and his
attempt to rebuild Carthage and to give an opportunity for
Italian emigration to the provinces was the first link in
the chain of that beneficial course of action. Right and
wrong, fortune and misfortune, were so inextricably blended
in this singular man and in this marvelous political
constellation, that it may well beseem history in this
case--though it beseems her but seldom--to reserve her
judgment." (Mommsen.)
Much of the criticism of each of these historians is manifestly true;
but the charge that Gaius Gracchus contemplated the substitution of
the rule of a despot for the rule of the oligarchy seems not to be
borne out by the facts.
A true understanding of the policies and objects of Gaius Gracchus can
be had only when we start our investigation with an appreciation of
the strongest motive which urged him onward. This motive was not, on
the one hand, a deep-rooted love and reverence for popular rights (as
was undoubtedly the case with his brother Tiberius); nor, on the other
hand, was it selfish interest, or the desire to usurp to himself the
supreme power in the state. The strongest influence in the life and
character of Gaius Gracchus was the desire to be avenged upon the
senatorial party for the murder of his brother. His efforts in behalf
of popular rights were instigated primarily by the desire to show
respect to his brother's memory and to carry out his brother's
policies. Upon this hypothesis the life and character of Gaius
Gracchus can be easily understood.
CHAPTER VIII
MARIUS AND SULLA
The Roman government after the death of Gaius Gracchus, while still
nominally a republic, had lost all its democratic character and had
once more become an oligarchy such as had existed centuries before,
during the period of the patrician republic. It was evident, however,
that the existing situation could not permanently continue. The
oligarchical government is that form of government which from its very
nature can never acquire stability. Both democracy and monarchy
possess elements of strength which may give to such governments a long
continuance of life; the oligarchy, lacking both the strength of
foundation of the one and the unity of action of the other, must
inevitably be supplanted by a freer or a more restricted system of
government. After the fall of Gaius Gracchus the last opportunity for
the re-creation in Rome of a truly democratic form of government was
lost. It should have been evident to any one who could read the signs
of the future that the power for the time possessed by the senatorial
oligarchy would soon be snatched from it, either by the frenzied hand
of a mob or by the strong hand of a despot.
Few in Rome at this time, however, seem to have been thinking much
about the future. To reactionists or even to conservatives the future
is always almost an unknown word; satisfied with the present, or
looking back with regret to the past, the supporters of special
interests and the votaries of tradition walk backward over the
precipice, the near presence of which they will neither see for
themselves nor be warned of by others.
A flicker of life on the part of the popular party was seen in an
effort by the tribune Decius to indict the former consul Opimius for
his part in the murder of Gaius Gracchus and his friends. The defense
of Opimius was undertaken by the renegade Carbo. The life of this
politician seems an excellent example in proof of the statement that
the demagogue seeks the favor of the people only for his own
advantage, and that as soon as he has acquired such favor, and has
become a person of influence, his next step is to sell himself, now
valuable on account of the political power he has acquired through
his hypocrisy toward the people, to the special interests. No better
contrast can be found in history between the true reformer and the
unprincipled demagogue than is the contrast between Tiberius Gracchus
and Carbo. While it is comparatively easy, however, to go back into
past ages and to separate the sheep from the goats, and to distinguish
between reformer and hypocrite, it is a much harder undertaking to do
this with the living politicians. It often happens that the people are
too ready to follow the demagogue and to repudiate and ridicule the
honest reformer. Striking illustrations of this phenomenon could
easily be given from recent American history. The doctrine of the
survival of the fittest applies in all sciences, social as well as
natural. In all its applications, however, this doctrine is that of
the survival of the fittest to meet existing conditions, not the
survival of the fittest from the standpoint of absolute merit. With
those who attempt to secure the political support of the proletariat
of a great city, merit is to a great extent a handicap, and a certain
class of vices the greatest advantage.
There are some men naturally so constituted that the doctrine that the
end justifies the means can be consistently and safely applied by them
in their public life. To this class have belonged most of those men
through whom all the greatest victories for liberty and the greatest
reforms in this world have been finally achieved. The mass of mankind,
however, are incapable of consistently and permanently following the
doctrine; and with all men, except the few above referred to, the
character of their objects and methods must act and react upon each
other. The result is that those seeking reform and honesty in
politics, in the main seek to accomplish their purposes by honest
methods; while the demagogue, seeking his own interests alone, a
hypocrite as to his motives, will never consider as to the honesty of
his methods. It is only on exceptional occasions that the honest
advocate of popular rights can win the support of the mob by honest
methods. Several causes work together to accomplish this result. In
the lower economic strata the individual is far more strongly
influenced by his own immediate interests than by the permanent
interests of the class to which he belongs. Perhaps it would be too
much to expect the contrary.
We have constantly before us to-day the spectacle of men who--loudest
in their denunciation of the discrimination which public officials
exercise in favor of the special classes and against the common
citizen--at election time, in consideration of a few dollars for
themselves, exert all their influence in favor of the worst exponents
of the system they denounce. By the return, in the form of direct or
indirect bribes to a selected few of the proletariat, of a small
portion of the money previously illegally or unjustly exploited from
the poor, the politicians of the "practical" type are able to secure
the assent of the greater portion of the proletariat to the
continuation of such exploitation.
Again, the candidate or political leader who intends to carry out his
promises is under a disadvantage in comparison with the candidate or
leader who does not. There are limitations to what government can
accomplish; there are no limitations to what a demagogue can promise.
There is no more unfavorable criticism possible upon the lack of
proper intelligence of the majority of the American voters than the
character of the promises and the arguments which are received with
applause at political meetings of every political party.
This criticism upon the political actions of the poorer classes,
economically, by no means indicates that they are the least desirable
class of voters in a country, or that a country would be better
governed if the ballot were taken away from them. The truth of the
matter is that it is mainly by the votes and efforts of the lowest
classes in a community (from the standpoint of wealth and social
status) that every great reform or popular victory must be achieved.
It is at the great crises that the masses are most generally right,
and the classes most generally wrong. No phenomenon of history is more
clear and more striking than that, at every great crisis of the
world's history, the mass of the wealthy and educated classes has been
always wrong. Nowhere is this more plainly to be discerned than in the
history of our own country. In the Revolutionary days the great mass
of the wealth and education in the country was to be found on the
Tory side. At the crisis the concrete question of personal interest
prevails over the abstract idea of public welfare; those who are
personally satisfied with existing conditions are slow to advocate a
change; those who have little to lose find it easier to be courageous.
Next to the small nucleus of true reformers, the first adherents of
any reform movement are apt to be the discontented and restless
elements of the community.
We can see a working example of this phenomenon, many centuries ago,
in the brief account which the Bible gives us of the recruiting of the
force with which David first offered resistance to King Saul. "David
therefore departed thence, and escaped to the Cave Adullam: and when
his brethren and all his father's house heard it, they went down
thither to him. And every one that was in distress, and every one that
was in debt, and every one that was discontented, gathered themselves
unto him; and he became a captain over them."
In the case of the demagogue Carbo, we find him, after a violent
career as a popular tribune, selling his influence and services to the
senatorial party, of which he was henceforth the most servient tool.
He was rewarded for his services to this party by an election as
consul, and it was during his consulship (120 B.C.) that the
indictment was brought against Opimius. Carbo's influence, coupled
with the fear which the murderers of the Gracchi and their followers
had left in the minds of the people, was sufficient to secure the
acquittal of Opimius. The triumph of Carbo, however, was short-lived.
He was himself indicted by L. Licinius Crassus, brother-in-law of
Gaius Gracchus, and the manifestation of the feeling against him
became so bitter that Carbo was driven to take his own life by poison.
The Roman politicians of the next few years, the Metelli, Æmilius
Scaurus, and others, left l
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/41202