From the Gracchi to Nero: A History of Rome from 133 B.C. to A.D. 68 (8 page)

Thoughtful Romans began to realize the need to attempt some alleviation of the economic situation, if only because it affected Rome’s military strength. The Roman army was a citizen militia: it consisted of men enrolled in five property
classes
, but if these men lost their farms and became urban paupers they would sink below the minimum property qualification and would be classed as
capitecensi
or
proletarii
who were not subject to conscription. The evidence suggests that the needs of recruitment had in fact led to some relaxation of the necessary requirement and that some such men had been enrolled in the armies which fought in Africa and Greece. This would produce further difficulty, because on demobilization men previously had a farm to which to return, whereas now some men might be left resourceless apart from any war-booty that they had won. If the strength of the army was to be kept up under the traditional system of recruitment, the peasant farmers of Italy must be restored to their old prosperity. This concern for the needs of the army might combine with distrust of recent developments in the countryside to induce some Romans to attempt some reform.

The first move came from Laelius, the close friend of Scipio Aemilianus who must certainly have been behind the proposal. At some date before or during his consulship in 140 Laelius raised the question of public land.
²
No details unfortunately are known about his scheme. It was possibly on the lines later followed by Tiberius Gracchus and envisaged that the State should reclaim all land held in excess of the legal limit of five hundred
iugera
and distribute this in allotments to the landless, but it may have been less thoroughgoing than the Gracchan plan (e.g. it might have dealt only with quite
recent seizures of land in excess of the legal amount). In view of the conclusion of the wars in Greece and Africa in 146 and the possible needs of some of the troops, the allotments may have been designed for veterans as well as the poor of Rome and Laelius perhaps made the proposal during his praetorship in 145. But when the scheme was mooted, it met with such severe opposition from the Senate and landowners that Laelius dropped it; according to one tradition he gained the
cognomen
of Sapiens for this act of political expediency.

Scipio also showed a similar moderation. The final fate of Carthage, which he had witnessed at close quarters during the last six days of bitter street-fighting, had impressed him with the impermanence of great empires, even those with mixed constitutions as that of Carthage, and he may have begun to harbour some fears for Rome’s future. He wanted to maintain the existing stability and the traditional balance of society. Thus in order to restore the peasant-farmer he was willing to check the growing greed of the landowners, but he would not push the issue to an open conflict when he realized the strength of the opposition to Laelius’ proposal.

After Laelius’ failure, however, some senators continued to work for reform, but so far from coming from Scipio’s supporters they were in opposition to the dominant Scipionic group. The political fortunes of the various groups fluctuated at the elections during the next few years, when some important reforms were carried: in 139 secret ballot was established for elections and this principle was extended to the judicial assemblies of the People in 137.
³
These measures would clearly give the People greater freedom from pressure by the nobles. If Scipio’s political power varied during these years, a series of military disasters and scandals in Spain soon gave him a chance to win further glory in war; a tried soldier was needed to bring the Spanish wars to a decisive end, and the obvious man was the conqueror of Carthage. So in 134 Scipio became consul for a second time, after receiving from the People a special dispensation from a law of 151 which prohibited such re-elections. While he was absent in Spain, the reform party in Rome acted.
⁴

The lead was taken by Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, one of the tribunes of 133 B.C. He belonged to a distinguished family. His grandfather, the elder Scipio Africanus, had conquered Hannibal; his mother Cornelia,
⁵
Scipio’s daughter, was a lady of wide culture. His father, Ti. Sempronius Gracchus, embodied many of the older Roman virtues: a good soldier and provincial governor, he had brought a Celtiberian war to a successful end, established peace there for a generation, and reduced Sardinia; twice consul (177; 163), he had been censor in 169. After his death in 154 Cornelia refused an offer of
marriage from the reigning king of Egypt, Ptolemy Physcon, and devoted herself to the education of her children, Tiberius (born
c.
163), Gaius (some ten years younger), and their elder sister Sempronia (who married Scipio Aemilianus, the adopted son of Publius, a son of the elder Africanus). An admirer of Greek culture, Cornelia employed Greek tutors for her children; one, an eminent rhetorician Diophanes, who was a political exile from Mitylene, taught the boys oratory, an art in which they soon excelled. Another formative influence on Tiberius’ life was Blossius of Cumae, a Stoic philosopher and a member of a distinguished ‘liberal’ family which in earlier days had supported the democratic anti-Roman party at Capua.
⁶
In Rome, where he had settled as a guest (
hospes
) in the family of P. Mucius Scaevola, he won the friendship of Tiberius who will have been impressed by his family tradition of democracy and independence, perhaps even more than by his Stoicism.

Tiberius, who became an augur at the age of ten, served with distinction under his brother-in-law Aemilianus at the siege of Carthage (146) and married Claudia, daughter of the Princeps Senatus, Appius Claudius Pulcher. His quaestorship in 137, when he served under Hostilius Mancinus in Spain, had a twofold importance. It was while he was travelling through Etruria on his way to Spain that, seeing the large estates worked by slaves and noting the absence of free peasants, he realized the need for reform. After he had reached Spain he extricated a Roman army from disaster. When Mancinus’ troops were cut off by the enemy near Numantia, the Spaniards allowed them to depart under terms for the fulfilment of which Tiberius made himself responsible since they trusted him for his father’s sake. The Senate, however, later shamefully repudiated the treaty and made a scapegoat of Mancinus who was handed over to the Spaniards. His officers, including Tiberius, nearly suffered the same fate; though Tiberius escaped by the skin of his teeth, he may well have been embittered by this treatment. Even if the tradition that he turned demagogue because of the odium arising from this episode derives from the propaganda of his political opponents, at very least he will not have been encouraged to expect honourable conduct from the Senate in the future, while the fact that he had saved a Roman army in Spain will have enhanced his popularity.

It is difficult to be sure which were the dominant motives that turned him into a reformer. Knowledge of Greek political thought and practice, the effect of the Spanish episode, the contemporary slave-rising in Sicily, concern at the changing economic conditions with their impact on peasant husbandry and army recruiting, the consequent growth of unemployment at Rome, all these factors may have combined to urge a generous-hearted man to risk his own political future in an attempt to re-establish the peasants on small-holdings once again.
⁷
But he did not stand alone at first: his was not a voice crying in the wilderness, but one backed by a powerful group in the Senate. His
father-in-law Appius Claudius Pulcher, who had been consul (143 B.C.) and censor (probably 136) was Princeps Senatus (i.e. his name now headed the senatorial roll). With them were linked by marriage two other influential men: P. Licinius Crassus Mucianus, a wealthy jurist and scholar (later to be consul in 131 and Pontifex Maximus), had married Pulcher’s sister, Clodia, and their daughter Licinia married Gaius Gracchus. Crassus’ brother P. Mucius Scaevola, one of the greatest jurists of the day, was holding the consulship in 133, the year of Tiberius’ tribunate. Other outstanding supporters included M. Fulvius Flaccus (later consul in 125), C. Papirius Carbo (consul in 120) and C. Porcius Cato (consul, 114). With relations and friends of this weight behind him, Tiberius might at least hope for a fair hearing for his proposals, while even the Scipionic group, though politically hostile, could scarcely be expected to show unreserved opposition in view of Laelius’ earlier attempt at land reform.
⁸

Early in his tribunate Tiberius proposed a
lex agraria
to make land available for distribution in allotments. Everyone holding more
ager publicus
than the legal limit of 500
iugera
(
c.
300 acres) must give up the surplus, but should retain the 500
iugera
(and possibly also 250
iugera
for each son, up to a maximum of 1000
iugera
) which should become the possessor’s in perpetuity and should not be subject to rent (
vectigal
); probably no further compensation was offered. The fertile
ager Campanus
was not included in the scheme. The land so reclaimed by the State was to be distributed to Roman citizens in small allotments, with perhaps a maximum size of 30
iugera
; the new holders were not allowed to alienate them and were to pay a small rent.
⁹

As a short-term scheme the bill had great advantages. There could be no objection on the legal score to this resumption of land settlement: Tiberius’ friend, the jurist Scaevola, would have seen to that. It would alleviate much distress, though if the terms of army-recruitment remained unaltered and overseas wars continued, it would scarcely prove a permanent solution to the problem as a whole. The existing occupiers of the public land had cause for both satisfaction and annoyance. Those who occupied a small amount could henceforth enjoy security of tenure, but those who had to surrender many acres had some reason to complain: for years, or even generations, they had regarded the land as their own, putting capital into it, building their homes and family tombs on it, using it as dowries for their daughters, perhaps mortgaging it. The majority of the large landowners, who had most to lose by the proposal, were of course senators, but Tiberius had friends in the Senate and if he had followed the normal procedure of bringing his bill to the Senate before taking it to the People, there is no justification for believing
that it would not have been given a fair hearing. Vested interests would naturally have biased many senators, but others might have been willing to consider the good of the community first. Gracchus, however, decided to follow a hundred years old precedent, that of C. Flaminius who had carried a land-bill without consulting the Senate: he took his measure straight to the Popular Assembly. His motives are obscure: perhaps he thought that it might get bogged down in prolonged and futile discussion in the Senate, and so decided that, as he had only one year in which to act, shock-tactics would be better. But his impatience proved unwise. When with eloquent appeals he brought his bill to the Concilium Plebis, it was unexpectedly vetoed in the interests of the Senate by a fellow-tribune, M. Octavius, whom Gracchus may hitherto have considered as a friend. The Senate was unwilling to acquiesce in his blatant disregard of its traditional rights.

Undeterred, Tiberius pressed on. In his annoyance he may have withdrawn the concession that the 500
iugera
retained by the
possessores
should become their private property and proposed that this should remain
ager publicus
, though still rent-free. He repeatedly urged Octavius to withdraw his veto; he may have tried to delay the transaction of public business until his bill was passed, even if he did not formally declare a
iustitium
; he was even persuaded to submit the question to the Senate for consideration at last, but this was useless, since his conduct had alienated much of the sympathy that he had enjoyed there.
¹⁰
Finally he summoned the People and after further vain appeals to Octavius to retract, he took a step of the utmost gravity: he proposed the formal deposition of Octavius from the tribunate (see p. 25 f.). The people voted the deposition, elected another tribune in his place and carried Tiberius’ agrarian bill.
¹¹

The bill was passed but another hurdle remained: to secure its effective working. For this a commission independent of the Senate would be desirable, Tiberius accordingly proposed and the People established a triumviral agrarian commission, with judicial powers to settle disputes (
triumviri agris iudicandis adsignandis
), members probably being eligible for annual re-election.
¹²
The men chosen were a family group: Tiberius, his younger brother Gaius, and his father-in-law Appius Claudius Pulcher. The commission soon started work, but they needed money to help the settlers to stock their allotments, and public finance was controlled by the Senate which refused help and insulted Tiberius by offering him an allowance of about two shillings a day for his expenses. At this difficult moment news arrived that Attalus, king of Pergamum, had died and had made the Roman People his heir. Tiberius thereupon introduced a bill, or threatened to do so, to authorize the use of some of this wealth for his settlers, and said that he would bring the question of settling Attalus’ kingdom before the People.
¹³
This was going too far: until now the Senate’s control of finance and foreign affairs had been
unchallenged, but Tiberius was interfering in both spheres. His action must have destroyed any sympathy that still remained for him in the Senate: his reliance on the People will have increased senatorial fears of his aims. He was reproved by Q. Metellus, and denounced by T. Annius, but he had got the funds for his settlers.

In the course of the summer the tribunician elections for the next year drew near, and Tiberius decided to stand for a second tribunate: his motive may have been to remain in office in order to safeguard the working of his agrarian bill, but his intention must have suggested to his opponents a dangerous personal ambition. Re-election was not illegal, but the last important case belonged to a period two hundred years earlier when the function of the tribunate was very different.
¹⁴
As harvest time prevented some country-voters from coming to Rome, Tiberius may have broadened his programme to appeal to more of the city population.
¹⁵
At first a dispute over which tribune should preside at the elections led to an adjournment. Next day Tiberius and his supporters gathered on the Capitol, where the Assembly met; during a discussion about his eligibility to stand a second time, he gave some signal which perhaps accidentally led to a brawl: the meeting broke up and the other tribunes fled. In the Senate, which met in the Temple of Fides, P. Mucius Scaevola was asked to save the State and destroy the tyrant, to which he replied that he would neither act illegally nor recognize any illegal act by the People. This was no answer for the Pontifex Maximus, P. Scipio Nasica, who resorted to force. Leading out those senators who would follow him, and joined on the way by other opponents of Gracchus, he rushed to the assembly where they clubbed and stoned to death three hundred Gracchans. Tiberius himself was struck down near the door of the Temple of Juppiter Capitolinus, close by the statues of the Kings. All the bodies were thrown into the Tiber by night. After nearly four hundred years blood had again been shed in Rome in civil strife.
¹⁶