by Horatius Piscinus on Tue Nov 12, 2002 4:47 am
Salvete mi amici et amicae
The sources we have on the Gracchi are a section in Plutarch's "Lives", Appian's "Civil Wars" 1.9.37 and 1.11.46, Vellius Paterculus 2.2.2-3; and several references by Cicero. Here is what Cicero wrote, in the chronological order of when he wrote them.
66 BCE Pro Cluentio 34, 94. A passing reference to Gaius Gracchus, "men as eminent as Publius Popilius Laenas and Quintus Caecilius Metellus Numidicus found it beyond their powers to stand up to the opposition of a tribune." Laenas, who prosecuted the followers of Tiberius, was exiled by Gaius Gracchus in 123. Metellus Numidicus by Saturninus in 100.
Pro Cluentio 54, 150: "It was proposed by Gaius Sempronius Gracchus to deal with false witness to compass a man's death, and his motive was to help the people, not to oppose them."
63 BCE Pro Rabirio 4, 12-13: "Gaius Sempronius Gracchus passed a law exempting citizens from prosecutions on capital charges unless and until by the consent of your Comitia it were first ordained... Now, if this procedure you (Labienus) are supporting were so democratic, if it could be described as containing the smallest element of justice or fairness, surely it would inevitably have been adopted by Gaius Sempronius Gracchus....Do not waste time pretending that your uncle, that other Labienus, whoever he may have been, was more deeply mourned by the people of Rome than Tiberius Gracchus ever was."
63 BCE Against Catalina IV: "Tiberius Gracchus facing the ordeal of your (the Senate's) stern verdict because he aimed to become tribune a second time, nor of Gaius Gracchus because he had incited the land reformers to revolt."
Against Catilina IV: v, 10 "A Sempronia law which safeguards the lives of a Roman citizen in cases where the Comitia has voted no measure against them.
Against Catalina IV: vi, 12 "a mere boy who was acting as the emissary of his own father, had also been thrown into prison and put to death." Referring to Quintus Fulvius, 18 years old, and to his father Marcus Fulvius Flaccus. Fulvius Flaccus was a member of the Gracchan land commission after 130, became consul in 125. A strong supporter of Gaius Gracchus, he was executed by Opimius, along with 3,000 of Gaius' followers in 122. He is brought up in Cicero's speech, as a way to accuse Julius Caesar of being part of the Cataline conspiracy, as Fulvius was Julius Caesar's maternal grandfather.
55 BCE On the Orator 1,9, 37: Q. Scaevola speaking, "I believe the best speakers I have ever heard were the tribunes Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus...fine speakers equipped with every oratorical qualification that nature or training could provide. Because of their father's wisdom and their grandfather's military victories, Rome, as they found it, was prospering exceedingly. yet they managed to bring our flourishing nation to ruin, and this they did by their eloquence." [An odd statement to place in Scaevola's mouth, as he was a strong and most consistent supporter of the Gracchi.]
On the Orator 1, 33, 153: L. Licinius Crassus (Gaius Gracchus' father-in-law) is speaking (really describing Cicero's own methods), "Ennius, if his poetry was chosen for my exercise, or Gaius Gracchus, if I set myself on one of his speeches, I had already appropriated the best, finest, and fittest words on whatever the subject might be."
52 BCE Pro Milo, "When the seditious tribunus plebis, Gaius Papirius Carbo asked Publius Africanus (Aemilianus) at an open meeting what he thought about the death of Tiberius Gracchus, you will not, I am sure, accuse the great man of mental aberration for his reply that, in his opinion, the killing was deserved." The story recorded elsewhere is that Scipio Aemilianus replied, "So far as Tiberius had aspired to the crown, he had been justly put to death." A statement that could be taken to have just the opposite meaning as what Cicero says. Plutarch stated that Scipio replied only with an ambiguous quote from Homer, "Even so perish all who do the same." On its face the words seem to have Scipio agree to Tiberius's murder, but in the context of Homer from which it is drawn, it too has the opposite meaning.
Pro Milo V, 13 "Those occasions on which Tiberius Gracchus and Gaius Gracchus were killed...their repression could not fail to convulse the Republic, though it was to safeguard the Republic that it had to be carried out."
52; 46-44 BCE On the Laws III.20: Quintus asks, "What rights did the tribunate of Tiberius Gracchus leave to the best citizens? ...Furthermore, was it not the overthrow of Gaius Gracchus and the casting of daggers in the forum, that citizens might use them to stab one another, this is Gracchus' own description of what he did, that brought about through the tribunate a complete revolution in the state?" Here Quintus puts forward one of those political rumors that were later used to justify Tiberius murder, playing with the "casting of daggers in the forum" in a literal sense rather than the allegorical sense in which it was originally spoken. Against the Cataline conspirators played to his own supporters fears by trumping up charges against Lentullus and the others that they were stockpiling daggers.
On the Laws III.24 Cicero, however, replies to Quintus that while the tribunes have too much power, the people are more cruel and violent. The Tribune's power, in practice, acts therefore as a check on mob rule. A tribune may excite the people, "and they often calm them too." It is enough, Cicero says, that only one of the ten tribunes need veto a measure to act as a check on the others. "Why it was the fact that Tiberius Gracchus not only disregarded another tribune's veto, but even deprived him of his powers, that caused his own downfall." Speaking further on the institution of the tribunes (III. 25) "When the Senate had granted this power to the plebeians, conflict ceased, rebellion was at an end, a measure of compromise was discovered which made the humble believe that they were accorded equality with the nobility, and such a compromise was the only salvation of the state. 'But," you say, 'we have had two Gracchi.' yes, and you could mention may more besides...but in the meantime the Senatorial order (summus ordo) is not subject to envy, and the common people (plebi) make no desperate struggles for their rights....real liberty, not a pretense of it, had to be given to the common people, but this liberty has been granted in such a manner that the people were induced by many excellent provisions to yield to the authority of the nobles (principum)."
44 BCE On the Republic II. 49 "It has been said that Spurius Cassius, Marcus Manlius, and Spurius Maelius attempted to win the kingship, and recently..." The text breaks there with a missing section. Since the dialogue here is set in Jan/Feb 129, it is assumed that Tiberius Gracchus was inferred.
On the Republic III. 41 "Tiberius Gracchus...kept faith with his fellow citizens, but violated the treaty rights of our allies and the Latins."
44 BCE On Duties II. 21,72 "Gaius Gracchus...benefited numerous individuals by massive distribution of free grain, yet in doing so he exhausted the national treasury. The modest distribution of Marcus Octavius (in 120 BCE) on the other hand, not only provided the needs of the poorer sections of the population, but were useful to the state as well." Even this 'moderate' measure of Octavius was then superceded by more stringent measures.
On Duties II, 23, 80 "strife over the redistribution of land was what caused their (the Gracchi) downfall, too."
In defending Rabirius, attacking Catalina, and in the speech for Milo, Cicero also repeated a line of political identification. Ahala, Nasica, Opimius, Marius, Cicero, and Milo. What he was doing is comparable to a Kennedy today addressing the Democratic party by conjuring up the memory of JFK, FDR, and Jefferson, only Cicero was reciting Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, and John Wilkes Booth. It played to a certain political faction, reminding them of their political heritage with which they identified themselves. Nasica, responsible for the purge of Tiberius Gracchus' followers was sent away by the Senate, in spite of the fact that he was the ponifex maximus whose duties required him to remain in Rome. Not an official exile, but a de facto exile. Opimius, Cicero, and Milo were all exiled, if not by the Senate as a body, by the Senate's tacit approval with strong support by some senators.
Cicero also tried to place himself within the political tradition of the Scipio circle, having been a student of Scaevola the Augur. Not the same person as Scaevola the Jurist who was in the Scipio circle, a strong supporter of Tiberius Gracchus, and also one of those who was on the commission investigating Tiberius followers, and who "advised" Cornelius Nasica to accept duties in the East. Cicero has Laelius and Scipio Aemilianus as characters in some of his dialogues, such as De Re Publica. He tries to place some of his own views into their mouths, views that concern politics of his own day rather than in the Gracchan period.
I question how some of Cicero's terms are often interpreted. He does speak of the Optimes in his own time; never really referring to Scipio or his circle as such. The Optimes seem to be a faction within those equites raised to the Senate by Sulla, and by no means all of them. He also uses the term summus ordo which is translated to mean the Senate as a social class. That I think is a misinterpretation. It might be interpreted to mean the equites as a whole if one was speaking of the censorial classes, but how he used it in Leges seems more likely to mean a certain stratum within the Senate. In the later political divisions, pro and anti Saturninus, Marians and Sullans, Optimes and Populares, all claimed the political heritage of the Scipio circle but presented different perspectives on the relationship between that circle of politicians and the Gracchi. Looking at Cicero's comments referring to the Gracchi, in the chronological manner as above, there is a subtle change in the perception he offers. In 63 the Gracchi were revolutionaries to be stamped out. By 44 they were benefactors of the Romans, even defenders of the Roman state, but misguided with regard to Rome's relations with allies and Latins. Even in 63 it is apparent in his statements that the Gracchi were very popular among the people in general and that Cicero had to be careful on how he spoke of them even with certain senatores. The change in perspective Cicero makes between 63 and 44 is a reflection of political realities and Cicero's own precarious state. In that it is also reflective of the diverse strata within the Senate, as the Populares become the summus ordo replacing the Optimes. The political divisions were among the equites, with different economic interests. The question remains whether these divisions can also be described in terms of different strata of social class within the equites, each vying to be included in the summus ordo that the Scipio circle surely was?
Valete
Moravius Piscinus
M Horatius Piscinus
Sapere aude!