Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T06:48:52.663Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Forerunners of the Gracchi*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

Lily Ross Taylor
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The tribunate of the plebs, according to a statement that Marcus Cicero puts into the mouth of his brother Quintus, was an office born in sedition and destined to create sedition (‘in seditione et ad seditionem nata,’ Leg. III, 19). There were two major periods of sedition. The first, the time of strife between patricians and plebeians, lasted from the birth of the tribunate in the early fifth century to the Lex Hortensia of 287 B.C. The second is usually dated from the tribunate of Tiberius Gracchus in 133 to the dictatorship of Caesar, a time when the tribunate was repeatedly an instrument of revolution, now accompanied by violence. The general view is that in the century-and-a-half between these two periods the tribunes, except in the time of Gaius Flaminius, were in accord with the Senate and were indeed agents of senatorial rule.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 52 , Issue 1-2 , November 1962 , pp. 19 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © Lily Ross Taylor 1962. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For list of sources on the tribunes under each year, see Broughton, MRR; for almost complete quotation of sources, see Niccolini, G., I Fasti dei tribuni della plebe (Milan, 1934).Google Scholar

2 Per. XLVIII and LV for 151 and 138. The Oxyrhynchus summaries are almost entirely lost for the former year, but include the event under 138, adding the fact that the consuls were released at the request of the people. In the general account of the tribunate in Zonaras VII, 15, the imprisonment of a consul is described as an unnatural act (ἂτοπα). See also Cicero's comment on the imprisonment of the consul Metellus in 60, ‘consule in carcere incluso, saepe item seditione commota’ (ad Att. II, 1, 8). Cf. Plut. Ti. Gracch. 15, 3.

3 Notable exceptions are Kahrstedt, U., ‘Die Grundlagen und Voraussetzungen der römischen Revolution’, Neue Wege zur Antike IV (1926), 97–118Google Scholar (see p. 107) and Gelzer, M., Philol. LXXXVI (1931), 285 f.Google Scholar See also A. Schulten's discussion of the effect of the Spanish revolts on internal conditions in Rome, CAH VIII (1930), 322 f. On the imprisonment of the consuls, see the curious statement of Smith, R. E., The Failure of the Roman Republic (Cambridge, 1955), 177Google Scholar, that the tribunes ‘acted in a constitutional and proper way.’

4 Das Tribunat der klassischen Republik, Zetemata, Heft 13, Munich, 1955. See especially 102–05, with statement on p. 102, ‘sehr unerhebliche und politisch unwichtige Anlässe.’

5 Bleicken, while insisting rightly (Chap. IV) that tribunes constantly referred appeals to the Senate and accepted the decision of the Senate, underestimates the importance of the ius auxilii in the third–second century. See W. Kunkel's important review of Bleicken, , Zeitschr. d. Sav. Stift., Roman. Abt. LXXVII (1960), 373–382, esp. 377 ff.Google Scholar

6 Livy II, 43, 3 and 44, I; III, 10–11; 20; 30; IV, 1, 6; 2, 13; 53; V, 16, 5; VI, 27, 8; 31, 4; VII, 3, 9. See Liebenam P-W, s.v. Dilectus, col. 603. For levies carried out beyond the city limits to avoid tribunicial interference, see Dion. Hal. VIII, 87. For an appeal to the college of tribunes against M'. Curius Dentatus, who was conducting an emergency levy in 275, see Val. Max. VI, 3, 4.

7 Threats to imprison consuls (or military tribunes with consular power) which are said to have been made by earlier tribunes are reflections of the incidents of 151 and later. See Dion. IX, 48; X, 34; Livy IV, 26, 9; V, 9, 4 and, for a threat against a censor, IX, 34, 24. See Mommsen, Röm. Staatsrecht 13, 154, n. 1 and, for imprisonments or threats of imprisonment after 138, see n. 2. There were instances in 119, 91 and 60, with threats in 59 and 55, and, against a censor, in 109.

8 Enrollment of former tribunes in the Senate is first attested for 216, Livy XXIII, 23, 6. If A. E. Astin is right that the quaestorship was not an obligatory office before Sulla, membership in the Senate must have been valuable for ex-tribunes who sought higher office or desired to found a senatorial family. See The Lex Annalis before Sulla, Collection Latomus XXXII, Brussels, 1958.

9 See Bleicken's discussion, Chap. II, of the circle of C. Flaminius and C. Terentius Varro and of the change in attitude of the tribunes after Cannae. See also Bleicken's analysis, 68–73, of the tribunicial laws of 189–8 passed without the authority of the Senate by Scipio Africanus' associates. For a similar interpretation, see my Voting Districts of the Roman Republic (Rome 1960), 306–8. Bills presented without the authority of the Senate were not unconstitutional, and, in view of the diversity of opinion among tribunes and senators, were probably commoner than Bleicken believes.

10 Polyb. vi,16.5. ὀφείλουσι δ᾽ ἀεὶ ποιεῖν οἱ δήμαρχοι τὸ δοκοῦν τῷ δήμῳ καὶ μάλιστα στοχάζεσθαι τῆς τούτου βουλήσεως. I take στοχάζεσθαι in the meaning given under II in LSJ, ‘endeavour to make out, guess at.’ The passage, the only example of the word cited from Polybius, is listed under I, 2. I agree with Walbank that there is no reason to consider the passage an addition made after the Gracchi. The tribunes, even when giving strong support to the Senate, must always have tried to show that their action was consistent with the will or the welfare of the people. See Plutarch's report on speeches of M. Livius Drusus, tr. pl. 122, C. Gracch. 9, 3.

11 Cic. Sest. 79. ‘Itaque fretus sanctitate tribunatus, cum se non modo contra vim et ferrum sed etiam contra verba atque interfationem legibus sacratis esse armatum putaret.’

12 Livy XLIII, 16, listed by Bleicken, o.c. (n. 4), 102, with the records of imprisonment of the consuls. The action against the censor (which was dropped) arose from an insignificant incident.

13 On the role of tribunes in the elections, see Livy XXII, 34; XXVII, 6, 3–5; XXXVII, 57–8; XXXIX, 32, 12 and 39, 1–4. Q. Cicero advises Marcus (Comm. pet. 18) to seek the aid of magistrates in his candidacy, ‘maxime consules, deinde tribuni pl.’

14 On the Scipios, see Bleicken, o.c. (n. 4), 68 ff.; on Marius, see Sal. Jug. 73; Plut. Mar. 7, 4; 8, 5.

15 They were M. Claudius Marcellus, cos. 166, 155, 152 (an important figure in the strife over the levy in 151), and M. Fulvius Nobilior, cos. 159.

16 Difficulties with the levy for the Macedonian War in 169 led to the otherwise unparalleled intervention of the censors. See Livy XLIII, 14.

17 See Polyb. VI, 19, 2, with Walbank's note, and, for discussion of the census, Gabba, E.. Athenaeum XXVII (1949), 173 ff.Google Scholar I agree with Gabba (see Athenaeum XXX (1952), 161–173) that the census lists were composed of the assidui with omission of the proletarii.

18 If, as seems likely, the law ne quis iterum consul fieret was tribunicial, there are signs of divisions among tribunes which reflect factions in the nobility; for, whereas the tribunes attacking Lucullus were probably favourable to the peace Marcellus had made, the law against repeated consulship was directed against Marcellus after he obtained a third consulship in 152. The law, supported by the aged Cato, dates between Marcellus' election and Cato's death in 149. See Malcovati, ORF 2, 75 f.; Scullard, , Roman Politics (Oxford, 1951), 270 f.Google Scholar; Gelzer, P-W, s.v. Porcius 9, col. 139.

19 On the levies at this time, see Polyb. XXXV, 3–4; Appian, Iber. 49; for the only reference to the tribunes, Livy, Per. XLVIII: ‘L. Licinius Lucullus A. Postumius Albinus consules cum dilectum severe agerent nee quemquam gratia dimitterent, ab tribunis plebis, qui pro amicis suis vacationem impetrare non poterant, in carcerem coniecti sunt.’ There follows the account of the difficulty of finding military tribunes and legates to go to Spain.

20 Cic. Har. resp. 58, ‘duas leges, Aeliam et Fufiam.’

21 This date was proposed by Ludwig Lange in his detailed discussion published in 1861 (reprinted in his Kleine Schriften (Göttingen, 1887), 1, 274–341). See for a brief statement his Röm. Althertümer II3 (Berlin, 1879), 476–9. Mommsen's advice to the prudent scholar not to speculate on these laws (Staatsrecht I3, III f., n. 4) has been followed in Germany until recently, and Bleicken, Hermes LXXXV (1957), 468–474, is unfamiliar with the files of JRS which demonstrate the disregard of the advice in England. See W. F. McDonald XIX (1929), 164–179; S. Weinstock XXVII (1937), 215–222; J. P. V. D. Balsdon XLVII (1957), 15 f. I am particularly indebted to McDonald's collection and analysis of the evidence.

22 See Cic. Sest. 56. ‘mitto earn legem quae omnia iura religionum, auspiciorum, potestatum, omnis leges quae sunt de iure et de tempore legum rogandarum, una rogatione delevit.’ See note 23 for reasons why the laws could not have dealt with the election of tribunes.

23 The right of obnuntiatio could not have been granted to regular magistrates in tribunicial elections because of the sacred obligation placed on the state and the tribunes to see that a full college of tribunes was elected. See Livy III, 55, 14 and Cic. Leg. III, 9; cf. Mommsen, Staatsrecht 113, 279 f. Tribunes may already have had the right of obnuntiatio in regular elections, though Zonaras is probably wrong, VII, 19, in tracing it back to the Valerian-Horatian laws. Obnuntiationes of tribunes against elections of regular magistrates continued after Clodius' law of 58. Cicero, Sest. 79, which has troubled McDonald and others, refers not to a law but to Sestius' obstruction of Ciodius' election to the curule aedileship. See Cic. ad Att. IV, 3, 3, with Münzer's comment, P-W, s.v. Sestius 6, col. 1887. In my opinion the problems involved in Antony's obnuntiatio against Dolabella at consular comitia (Phil., II, 82) have no connection with Clodius' law or with the Aelian and Fufian laws.

24 This may mean that before the time of the Lex Aelia and the Lex Fufia the concilium plebis had been permitted to meet on dies fasti as well as on the dies comitiales to which the comitia would have been restricted.

25 Schol. Bob. 148 Stangl. ‘〈De〉 legibus dicit Aelia et Fufia quae non sinebant prius aliqua de re ad populum ferri quam comitia haberentur ad designandos magistratus.’ (The passage is misunderstood by Bleicken o.c. (n. 21 above) 474, n. 1.) On the freeing of C. Calpurnius Piso, cos. 67, from laws which are not specified, see Dio XXXVI, 39, I, with McDonald's, W. F. interpretation, CQ [XXIII] (1929), 196 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar (which I rejected wrongly in CPh XXXVI (1941), 125 ff., 129, n. 69); on Cicero in 63, see Vat. 37, ‘salvis auspiciis … salva lege Aelia et Fufia’; on the tribune Lurco in 61, see Cic. ad Att. I, 16, 13, ‘solutus est et Aelia et Fufia’.

26 Weinstock's suggestion (o.c, n. 21) that the augurs actually declared Clodius' legislation invalid is unlikely, for Cicero would surely have reported the fact, instead of the discussion with augurs in a contio (Dom. 39–40). Clodius' own antics, with the suggestion that the acts of his tribunate were invalid, and references (Sest. 78 and 129) to watching the heavens during legislation, indicate that the submission of Clodius' tribunicial laws to the augurs was at least under discussion. What the attitude of the college would have been is uncertain, for Bibulus' continuous heaven-watching had been an abuse of obnuntiatio. Incidentally the popular election of priests, in force since 63, had probably strengthened the party of the Triumvirs in the college. The augurs included Pompey, Caesar's cousin, L. Julius Caesar, cos. 65, Clodius' brother Appius, Faustus Sulla and (a probable member by this time) P. Servilius Isauricus, cos. 48. See list for 50, MRR II, 254 f., with earlier names under 59, 57, 56, 55, 53.

27 CAH VIII (1930), 367. The law is also dated about 150 by Scullard, Roman Politics 28 and by Weinstock, o.c. (n. 21).

28 Appian, Iber. 78. See Smith, R. E., Service in the post-Marian Roman Army (Manchester, 1958), 7Google Scholar, with reference to the mistaken dates given by Liebenam and Kromayer-Veith and to the views of Last (CAH IX, 135) and Gabba (Athenaeum 29 (1951) 176 f.).

29 Livy, Per. LVII, is the basis for dating the law before 134. See on it Pliny, NH XIV, 19; Plut. C. Gracchus 9; Sal. Jug. 69, 4. See McDonald, A. H., JRS XXXIV (1944), 19–20Google Scholar for the suggestion that the law should be dated 150–135, that conditions in the Spanish wars account for the law, and that it is to be associated with the provisions for the use of the lot in the levy and for the limitations of service to six years. I am grateful to W. K. Lacey and T. R. S. Broughton for calling my attention to this important article. I do not agree with Bleicken, P-W s.v. Provocatio, 23, 2A. col. 2448, 2450 (1961) in rejecting the evidence for provocatio of soldiers.

30 The only evidence for the proposal is Plutarch, Ti. Gracchus 8. For sources, bibliography, and discussion of the career of Aemilianus, see Scullard, H. H., ‘Scipio Aemilianus and Roman Politics,’ JRS L (1960), 59–74.Google Scholar

31 Livy, Per. XLIX; Cic. Brut. 80; Malcovati, ORF 2 79 f.

32 See Sanctis, De, Storia dei Romani 4, 1 (Turin 1923), 483, 524 f.Google Scholar

33 The credit for this wise law is usually given to the Senate. See t he suggestion of Ferguson, W. S., JRS XI (1921), 94 ff.Google Scholar, that the law was designed to give the Senate control, free from tribunicial interference, over governors; it was also his view that at this time there was a plan to establish the provinces of Macedonia and Africa. But see Gelzer's criticisms, o.c. (n. 3), 286, n . 42. It seems to me likely that the architect of the measure was Piso himself rather than the Senate, which was guilty in 149 of shocking deceit of the Carthaginians whose envoys had agreed on a surrender. See Cicero's description of Piso, ‘tanta virtute atque integritate … ut solus … Frugi nominaretur,’ Font. 39.

34 Cic. Brut. 106. ‘ipse etiam Piso et causas egit et multarum legum aut auctor aut dissuasor fuit.’

35 Athenaeum XXXVIII (1960) 291–8. I am not convinced by Earl's effort to show Piso's ‘Claudian-Fulvian’ associations.

36 I cannot follow Niccolini in accepting Rossbach's emendation of Livy, Per. Oxyr. 50 and in placing in this year the Lex Atinia which enrolled tribunes in the Senate without censorial action. The law appears to date after Tiberius, probably after Gaius Gracchus. See Mommsen, Staatsrecht III, 862; Siber, H. v., Röm. Verfassungsrecht (Lahr, 1952), 160, 228.Google Scholar

37 Cic. Lael. 96; Brut. 83; ND III, 5; Malcovati, ORF 2 117 f.

38 On the membership of the college in 133, see MRR I, 495 f.; cf. 505 f. Fannius may have succeeded Tiberius Gracchus as augur. Another member elected at an earlier date was Tiberius Gracchus' father-in-law Appius Claudius Pulcher, who, though hostile to Scipio, would have been favourable to the power of the people. On Appius' difficulty in his consulship of 143 with a tribune who, apparently with the support of Senate and people, tried to keep him from triumphing, see Cic. Cael. 34; Val. Max. V, 4.6; Suet. Tib. 2.

39 On the significance of these ballot laws, see the statement of Larsen, J. A. O., CPh 49 (1954), 10Google Scholar, quoted by Scullard, o.c. (n. 30), 70. For the effect of these laws in liberating the votes of freedmen, see Last, CAH IX, 38, 203 and my Voting Districts, 141.

40 Of interest for Scipio's personal relations with tribunes are two men concerned with his censorship in 143; one of them was Laelius' son-in-law, C. Fannius, who functioned as tribune ‘arbitrio et auctoritate P. Africani’ (Cic. Brut. 100). The other Ti. Claudius Asellus, tribune of 140, brought Scipio to trial for having as censor taken away Asellus' public horse (Gell. in, 4, 1).

41 Livy, Per. Oxyr. LIV. The tribune was Claudius Asellus. If the fragmentary and corrupt text means that the consul Q. Servilius Caepio resisted the tribune with a lictor and the sword, the sacrosanctity of the tribune was violated.

42 Cic. Leg. III, 20; Livy Per. LV, with added detail inPér. Oxyr. The tribune C. Curiatius, who gave Scipio Nasica the nickname Serapio, proved on other occasions to be an effective agitator. See MRR for the evidence.

43 Val. Max. VIII, I, damn. 7; Appian, Iber. 83. See Mommsen, Staatsrecht II3, 320, n. 3.

44 Livy, Per. LVI; Appian, Iber. 84 (where there is confusion with the circumstances of the first consulship); Plut. Mar. 12.

45 CQ IV (1954), 97–122; see Walbank, Commentary on Polybius I, 636.

46 Gaius Gracchus' law on military service (MRR I, 514) is well attested but the statements of Plutarch (Ti. Gracchus 16, 1) and Dio (frg. 83) that Tiberius planned a law shortening the period of service is (I think, wrongly) usually rejected.