From the Gracchi to Nero: A History of Rome from 133 B.C. to A.D. 68 (11 page)

The supporters of Gaius Gracchus who had survived the slaughter and the subsequent assizes held by Opimius, were eager to avenge their leader and friends. By 120 B.C., they had gathered sufficient strength to challenge both the chief persecutor and the implications of the
senatus consultum ultimum
: Opimius was brought to trial ‘apud populum’ by a tribune named Decius Subulo.
²
A fundamental question of law was at stake: what latitude might be allowed to a magistrate in the exercise of his
imperium
at a time of internal disturbance, especially when he was backed by the moral authority of the Senate? Granted that the ‘salus populi’ must be the ‘suprema lex’, was he justified in disregarding the
ius provocationis
which Roman citizens had enjoyed for nearly 400 years, and in putting them to death without trial or appeal? It would seem that if men had actually raised arms against their country, they automatically became
hostes
and ceased to enjoy the rights of citizens: thus a strong case could be made for Opimius in his suppression of the Gracchans who fought on the Aventine. But it was very different when men had been disarmed or arrested later: many of these had not been granted any form of trial and those who secured the doubtful privilege of being hauled before Opimius’ assize had been summarily executed without opportunity to exercise their right of appeal and in defiance of Gracchus’ law ‘ne quis iniussu populi Romani capite damnetur’. Here Opimius’ action must have been illegal, but nevertheless he was acquitted.
³
One of his stoutest supporters at the trial was C. Carbo, who had deserted the Gracchan cause and had been rewarded with the consulship of 120. This renegade even went so far as to claim that Gaius had been justly killed, but in the following year he was
himself prosecuted on some charge by the young orator L. Crassus and committed suicide. Thus by the acquittal of Opimius the authority of the Senate and its agent was vindicated; it received further backing when the People was persuaded by a tribune, L. Calpurnius Bestia (120, or possibly 121), to recall Popillius Laenas, who had been forced into exile by Gaius Gracchus for the part that he had played in the suppression of the followers of Tiberius (p. 27).
⁴

The Senate did not, however, exercise its regained power in an entirely irresponsible manner: so far from attempting to secure the abrogation of Gaius’ legislation, it allowed the colonists of Junonia to retain their land despite the repeal of the
lex Rubria
, and it did not oppose, so far as is known, the series of agrarian bills that was passed during the next few years. A law (probably of 121) allowed any Gracchan settler to dispose of his allotment if he wished: this was a sensible idea, since if after a number of years men had failed to make good farmers it was better to let them transfer their land to others; further, since the maximum amount of
ager publicus
allowed to any individual still remained fixed at 500
iugera
, the transferred properties will normally have gone to other small farmers and not to swell the
latifundia
, though of course some men may have made money by speculative buying and selling. In 119 a second land-bill ended the further distribution of public land, by abolishing the commission,
⁵
granted perpetual tenancy to all occupiers of public land (i.e. those holding up to the maximum of 500
iugera
) and re-imposed rent on such land; this revenue was to be used to benefit the people in some way (for the corn supply?). Eight years later in 111 another tribune, probably Sp. Thorius, carried a third agrarian bill, of which part still survives inscribed on a bronze tablet. By it all
ager publicus
dealt with by the commissioners, whether used for individual allotments or for colonies or left to the
possessores
, was converted into private property; the system of squatting (
possessio
) was abolished and rent was cancelled. The general effect was to consolidate and maintain the work of the Gracchi, but one result was that there was little
ager publicus
now left in Italy for further distribution.
⁶

During the decade or so when these agrarian bills were carried, foreign affairs claimed some attention and on occasion led to a clash of policies. The proposal to found the colony at Narbo had caused political dissensions (p. 35), which were intensified when Jugurtha’s conduct in N. Africa called for Roman intervention by diplomacy or war (see below, p. 39). There was also need to guard the northern frontiers of Macedonia against attacks by the Scordisci, a Thracian tribe on the lower Save. Here a Roman defeat was retrieved in 119 by L. Metellus who gained the
cognomen
Delmaticus.
^6a
Four years later M. Aemilius Scaurus led Roman forces against the Taurisci, south
of the Drave, but the Scordisci defeated one of the consuls of 114 and even penetrated into Greece as far south as Delphi. In 113 another danger threatened: Germanic tribes, the Cimbri and Teutones, were on the move. The consul Cn. Carbo, who was sent to ward them off, met with a resounding defeat at Noreia, but most fortunately for Rome, they moved off westwards through Switzerland instead of threatening the northern frontier of Italy (see p. 44). In the Balkans the Scordisci were gradually reduced by C. Metellus Caprarius (113–112), Livius Drusus, the tribune of 122 and consul in 112 (112–111), and M. Minucius Rufus (110–107). M. Caecilius Metellus (consul 115) was busy establishing law and order in Sardinia and Corsica from 115 to 112.

Thus the Caecilii Metelli were very prominent at this time: Metellus Balearicus gained the censorship in 119 and his cousin Delmaticus in 115, and they or their relations held one of the consulships in each of the alternate years from 119 to 109. They were in fact the dominant family and often showed more sympathy to the Equites than to the Die-Hard senators.
⁷
Their group was joined by M. Aemilius Scaurus who married the daughter of Delmaticus (later this Caecilia Metella became Sulla’s wife). Scaurus belonged to a Patrician family which he lifted from the obscurity into which it had sunk in recent years: after hesitating between commerce and politics, he finally turned to the latter with such success that he became consul and
princeps senatus
in 115 and censor in 109.
⁸
This group of progressive men largely dominated the political scene, but they were later overshadowed by one whose early career they had helped to promote, Gaius Marius.

Marius came of a good municipal family from near the hill-town of Arpinum, some sixty miles south-east of Rome. After serving with distinction under Scipio Aemilianus at Numantia (133), he was helped to a political career by the Metelli and reached the tribunate in 119. As tribune, he showed some independence which may have cost him the support of the Metelli: he forced through a bill to limit undue influence at the Comitia (e.g. to check the intimidation of voters, by making narrower the ‘bridges’ over which they passed to record their votes). When the Senate, which Marius had perhaps failed to consult first, summoned him to explain, he swept aside the opposition of the consuls, Cotta and Metellus Delmaticus, and even threatened, it is said, to arrest them. On the other hand he took an unpopular line about corn-distribution: Gaius Gracchus’ measure had been modified by a certain M. Octavius (not the tribune of 133) and Marius now opposed some scheme to extend the distributions.
^8a
Thus the fact that he sponsored one measure that the Senate liked and the People disliked and another that appealed to the People and not to the Senate suggests that he had sought political support where he could find it. After failing to win the aedileship, he secured a praetorship for 115 although he was at the bottom of the list of successful
candidates, and that perhaps only with the help of bribery: at any rate he was accused of this and was only just acquitted, the voting being equal. As praetor, or more probably as a promagistrate in 114, he served in Spain. Thereafter, since he had contacts with the Equites, he may have devoted his attention to business interests. Also at some time (perhaps
c.
111) he married a Julia (an aunt of Julius Caesar): as a
novus homo
outside the governing class, he would find this link with a noble family most useful. Though he will hardly have reached a full reconciliation with the nobility, the Metelli may possibly have forgiven his conduct in 119, since he served later as legate to Metellus Numidicus in Africa. His purpose at this point was perhaps not so much to challenge the power of the Senate as to win an influential place within it. His methods are uncertain: one tradition represents him as energetic, courageous and dogged, another as a ‘slick’ betrayer of his friend Metellus.
⁹

During these years of the pre-eminence of the Metelli, life became somewhat strained, especially as the shadow of Jugurtha lengthened, and at times superstitious fears seemed to sweep over the masses. The censors of 115 removed no less than 32 members from the Senate and ‘censored’ the stage. Scaurus (consul in 115) carried a law to limit the voting power of freedmen.
¹⁰
In 114, when two of three Vestal Virgins who were tried for unchastity were acquitted by the Pontiffs, the People were not satisfied and a tribune demanded the establishment of a secular court to try them. This was presided over by a former censor, L. Cassius Longinus, notorious for his severity and his use of the question ‘Cui bono?’; he secured their condemnation.
¹¹
Nevertheless popular unrest demanded that the Sibylline oracles be consulted, and they ordered that two Greeks and two Gauls should be buried alive, as in the grim days of the Hannibalic War a hundred years before. But even this enormity, which was not typical of Roman ritual (sixteen years later a decree of the Senate specifically forbade human-sacrifice), did not avail to avert all signs of divine displeasure: in 111 much of the city was devastated by fire.

After the destruction of Carthage and the creation of the Roman province of Africa in 146, trade soon followed the flag, and businessmen from Italy began to develop interests in the province and the neighbouring client-kingdom of Numidia. Under King Micipsa (148–118 B.C.) Numidia flourished until his death when he bequeathed his realm jointly to his two sons and his nephew Jugurtha whom he had adopted as a son. The difficulties of a triple or tripartite rule were reduced when Jugurtha murdered one of his ‘brothers’ and defeated the other, Adherbal, who fled to the Roman province and then to Rome itself, seeking help to regain his rightful share of the kingdom. But Jugurtha also sent to Rome where he had ‘friends at court’: he had previously
served with some Numidian troops under the command of Scipio Aemilianus at Numantia (134–133), where he had gained the friendship of many Romans. In the Senate Aemilius Scaurus advocated supporting Adherbal by force of arms, but the majority decided to send a commission under Opimius to divide Numidia between the two claimants (
c.
116). Adherbal was given the more civilized eastern half including the capital named Cirta (modern Constantine in Algeria),
¹²
and Jugurtha received the less fertile western part.

Unwilling to accept this as a permanent settlement, Jugurtha later (112) drove Adherbal into Cirta and besieged him there. In response to Adherbal’s appeals the Senate first reprimanded Jugurtha and then sent another commission, this time with Scaurus in charge, which achieved little. Finally the unfortunate Adherbal was persuaded by the Italian merchants resident in Cirta to surrender on condition that his life should be spared. But in vain: when Cirta was occupied by Jugurtha’s troops, Adherbal was put to death by torture. Many Italian merchants were also killed: this was an irretrievable error by Jugurtha, whose troops may well have exceeded his orders. It provoked a political flare-up in Rome, where the Equites and People demanded action. At long last war was declared on Jugurtha and a Roman army was sent to Africa under the command of L. Calpurnius Bestia, consul in 111, who soon persuaded Jugurtha to make a formal surrender in return for the retention of the Numidian throne.

What did all this mean? The historian Sallust at any rate had no doubt: the whole series of Roman officials who had been sent to Africa had been successively bribed by Jugurtha.
¹³
And worse was to follow. Led by the tribune Memmius, the Roman People demanded an enquiry: under promise of safe-conduct Jugurtha should be summoned to Rome to disclose the names of the nobles whom he was alleged to have corrupted. When he arrived, however, at the end of 111, he is said to have bribed a tribune to exercise his veto and forbid him to make a public statement. He then murdered a cousin of his in Italy, named Massiva, a potential rival for the Numidian throne whom some senators were beginning to consider a possible substitute; Jugurtha then smuggled out of Italy the man that he had employed to commit the crime. Such conduct destroyed all hopes of reaching any agreement with the Senate, which, however, honoured its pledge and sent Jugurtha back to Africa. He, if any one, should know what truth lay behind his famous parting remark that Rome was ‘urbem venalem et mature perituram, si emptorem invenerit’.

The war continued. The consul Spurius Albinus achieved little (110), but when he had returned to Rome to hold the elections his brother Aulus, whom he had left in command, was defeated by Jugurtha near Suthul and the Roman army was humiliated by having to march under a yoke of spears and to evacuate Numidia. Soon (probably early in 109) a tribune C. Mamilius carried a bill by which the People established a commission, a
quaestio
of
Equites, to get to the bottom of these scandals. Scaurus somehow managed to become one of the chairmen, and the commission acted with vigour, though not necessarily with justice: Opimius, Bestia, Sp. Albinus and others were condemned and went into exile. At length the conduct of the war was to be raised above personal and political considerations, and an upright and efficient commander, Q. Caecilius Metellus, was sent out to Africa.
¹⁴

Rome was at last committed to full-scale war. The motives behind her recent policy, however, are by no means clear. She had been under no legal necessity to intervene in N. Africa and she might well have been able to check Jugurtha by other means short of war. Further, the German movements beyond her northern frontier and Carbo’s defeat in 113 (p. 38) might make her slow to tie up troops in Africa, and she certainly did not go to war to extend her territory there. Thus many senators may genuinely have felt that diplomacy was preferable to war, and not all the charges of corruption levelled against them by Sallust may be justified. But as time went on more may have come to the conclusion that war was necessary and others that it might be profitable to themselves. Yet even so, some may have thought only of a short war to check Jugurtha; he could then be left on the throne, since peace without honour might be better than a prolonged and difficult campaign. More urgent than the senators, however, were the Equites. Their friends had been butchered in Cirta, their interests in Africa threatened, and their hopes of future development there aroused. The People, also were ready to use any stick with which to beat the Senate. Thus pressure from Equites and People at last forced the Senate to more decisive action against the wily Jugurtha who would probably have been only too glad to avoid war if he could have secured Numidia without it.
¹⁵