From the Gracchi to Nero: A History of Rome from 133 B.C. to A.D. 68 (54 page)

16a CONSTITUTIONAL OFFENCE. Badian (
Aufstieg
, 694 ff.) rejects the common assumption that it was outrageous and unheard of for a tribunician bill to be put to the People without the Senate ’s approval; rather it was Octavius’ persistence in his use of his veto that offended against constitutional custom. [p. 24]

17 THE POPILLIUS INSCRIPTION. A famous inscription from Polla in Lucania (Greenidge,
Sources
²
, 14) records that a magistrate built a military road from Rhegium to Capua, rounded up some 900 fugitives when he was praetor in Sicily, was the first man to bring it about ‘ut de agro poblico aratoribus cederent paastores’, and built a forum. The man’s name is missing, but he is usually assumed to be Popillius, who will thus have co-operated in carrying out the Gracchan land-bill, though a political enemy. A suggestion by E. Bracco (
Rendiconti dell’ Acc. di Napoli
, 1955, 5 ff., and 1960, 149 ff.), that the man may be an Annius (either the consul of 153 or of 128), is strengthened by the discovery of a mile-stone near Catanzaro: ‘cclx T. Annius T. f. pr(aetor)’. But more probably the road was started by Popillius as consul in 132 in connexion with the slave-war and completed by Annius as praetor in 131. See A. Degrassi,
Philologus
, 1955, 259 ff.;
Inscript. Latinae Lib. Rei Publicae
(1957) n. 454. P. T. Wiseman, however, has argued (
Papers Brit. Sch. Rome
, 1964, 21 ff.) for equating the road-builder of the inscription with Annius in 131. For F. T. Hinrichs (‘Der römische Strassenbau zur Zeit der Gracchen’,
Historia
, 1967, 162 ff.) the matter is settled because he apparently believes (quite wrongly) that Popillius’ name actually survives in the inscription. G. Radke (Pauly-Wissowa,
RE
, Suppl. and XIII, 1971, 1509 f.) would assign the Via Annia to the consul of 153, and the Via Popillia to the consul of 132, while G. P. Verbrugghe,
Cl. Ph.,
1973, 25 ff., believes the author of the Elogium to have been Appius Claudius Pulcher (
cos.
143).

More important is the claim of the author of the inscription (and both Popillius and Annius were opponents of the Gracchi) to have been the first man to make the shepherds give place to the ploughmen, an apparent link with the Gracchan agrarian scheme. If the link is valid, it would appear that the opponents of the Gracchi were making a virtue of necessity and trying to claim some credit for the reform. However, it
is just possible that the magistrate is referring to local action to help the inhabitants of his Forum or to his activities in Sicily (cf. P. Fraccaro,
Opuscula
, II, 55 ff.; Astin,
Scipio Aemilianus
, 354). [p. 25]

18 RE-ELECTION TO THE TRIBUNATE. It is difficult to decide from Appian’s confused account (
BC
, 1, 21) whether re-election was formally legalized or not. See Jones,
op. cit.
in n. 14 above. Carbo’s proposal does not necessarily involve the assumption that re-election had hitherto been illegal: it was aimed at removing the ambiguity which had clouded the issue in 133. The matter was apparently soon settled: at any rate we hear of no agitation when Gaius Gracchus stood for a second tribunate in 123. [p. 26]

19 WORKING OF LAND-COMMISSION. Nine boundary-stones (
cippi
) established by the
triumviri
survive: they give the names of the men, and come from Campania, Lucania, Apulia and Picenum, but it is hazardous to try to establish the developing geographical patterns of the whole distribution from so few stones. See A. Degrassi,
Inscriptiones Latinae Liberae Rei Publicae
(1957), p. 269 ff. and Greenidge,
Sources
²
, 14, for the stones. On the carrying-through of the agrarian reform see J. Molthagen,
Historia
, 1973, 423 ff. Another stone, recently found in Apulia (see M. Panni,
Ist. Lombardo Acad.
, 1977; Stockton,
The Gracchi
(1979), 60), names only Flaccus and C. Gracchus (i.e. it dates to the period after Crassus’ death and Carbo’s appointment). On the need for caution in relating these stones to the developing plan of settlement and surviving centuriation see M. Frederiksen,
Dial. de arch.
, 1970–71, 330 ff. [p. 26]

20 ALLIED GRIEVANCES. It is not very likely, though possible, that the commissioners would call into question
ager publicus
which had been granted to Latin communities as corporations and of which the leases would be guaranteed by treaty. For a suggestion that the Latins possibly held comparatively more
ager publicus
than the other Italian allies see E. Badian,
Dialoghi di Archeologia
IV–V (1970–71), 398. [p. 26]

21 SCIPIO AND THE LAND-COMMISSION. Appian (
BC
, 1, 19, 2) who describes Scipio’s action is not very clear. It is sometimes argued that the judicial powers of the commissioners were transferred to an inactive consul and thus the whole effective work of the commission was hamstrung. Thus again recently R. A. Bauman,
Historia
, 1979, 384 ff., argues that they were so transferred to the consul who could delegate to the triumvirs as long as he remained in Italy. This view is less probable than that given in the text: see H. Last,
CAH
, IX, 42 f. and more briefly F. B. Marsh,
History of the Roman World 146–31 BC
, 3rd. ed., p. 409, n. to p. 48. [p. 26]

22 CENSUS FIGURES. The precise interpretation of the figures given by Livy and others is very debatable: probably in theory they represent all adult male citizens, though in practice some men may have failed to register. A. H. M. Jones (
Ancient Economic History
, p. 6) believes that though they are not reliable for demographic purposes, yet the rise in 125 B.C. does reflect the effect of Tiberius’ land bill. An alternative is to suppose that the rise in 125 was due to the censors having generously enrolled a number of Italians. See also ch. III, n. 26. On the Roman census figures in general see P. A. Brunt,
Italian Manpower, 225 BC
–A.D.
14
(1971), and 77 ff. for the census of the Gracchan period. [p. 26]

23 SCIPIO’S DEATH. For a lively discussion of ‘Whodunnit’ see J. Carcopino,
op. cit.
, ch. iii. A fragment from Laelius’ funeral oration for Scipio
may
suggest a natural death: Malcovati,
ORF
²
, p. 121; cf. E. Badian,
JRS
, 1956, 220. [p. 27]

24 PENNUS’ EDICT. E. Badian has pointed out (
For. Cl.
, 177) that Pennus’ bill must fall in the early months of 126 (not 125), since it was attacked by Gaius Gracchus who left Rome in 126 for a two-years’ quaestorship in Sardinia. Attempts, which have been made to link this measure with Flaccus’ citizenship bill of 126, are viewed with caution by D. Stockton,
The Gracchi
(1979), 94 f. [p. 27]

25 FLACCUS. It is often said that the People, unwilling to share their advantages with the allies, failed to support Flaccus, who was thus more easily persuaded by the Senate to go to Gaul. But E. Badian (
For. Cl.
, 178) accepts Appian’s statement that the Roman People supported Flaccus and believes that their opposition to Italian enfranchisement was not yet strongly developed. See also Badian,
Dialoghi di Archeologia
IV–V (1970–71), 391 ff. On Flaccus’ motives see U. Hall,
Athenaeum
, 1977, 280 ff.; on his career see W. L. Reiter,
Athenaeum
, 1978, 125 ff. [p. 27]

26 FREGELLAE. For the possibility that Fregellae was not popular with other Latin states see E. Badian,
Cl. Rev.
, 1955, 23 (but contrast E. Malcovati,
Athenaeum
, 1955, 137 ff.). Many Samnites and Paelignians, who spoke Oscan, had migrated to Fregellae in the second century. Since the Romans disliked ‘Oscans’, this may help to explain their ruthlessness: cf. E. T. Salmon,
Phoenix
, 1962, 110. E. Badian (
Dialoghi di Archeologia
IV–V (1970–71), 389 ff.) regards the revolt of Fregellae as due to special local causes and not a symptom of a widespread discontent among the Latins. It was probably at this time (cf. G. Tibiletti,
Rend. dell’Istituto Lomb
. 1953, 57 f.) that a measure was passed which granted Roman citizenship to all magistrates in Latin colonies (cf. p. 17), thus strengthening the loyalty of the local governing class to Rome. [p. 27]

27 GAIUS’ SPEECHES. For the surviving fragments see H. Malcovati,
Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta
, 2nd ed. 1955. [p. 27]

28 GAIUS’ LEGISLATION. On the chronology see H. Last,
CAH, IX
, 49 ff. and n. 34 below; also D. Stockton,
The Gracchi
(1979), 226 ff. Confusion may have arisen because Appian has put into Gaius’ second tribunate some of the measures that may really belong to that part of his first tribunate that fell after his
election
to his second term, i.e. July to Dec. 123. Cf. Badian (
For. Cl.
, 181): the year 123 ‘produces the impression of a lull’. On the other hand P. A. Brunt (in Seager,
Crisis
, 146 ff.) argues, against Last’s view, that Gracchus’ judiciary law and indeed most of his legislation should be placed in the first half of 123, i.e. he ‘tried to consolidate support among all classes outside the Senate at the very beginning of his tribunician career, and his projects of reform apart from his
rogatio de sociis
(which, as he must have known, was more likely to alienate than secure goodwill), were launched at once’. U. Hall,
Athenaeum
, 1972, 2 ff., believes that no law to legalize the re-election of tribunes can be assigned to the Gracchans and that in 123 Gaius at first did not consider himself as a candidate for re-election. If so, he may have tried to push through much legislation early in 123. On his re-election see also D. Stockton,
The Gracchi
(1979), 169 ff. [p. 28]

29 LEX AGRARIA. The statement of a writer on field-surveying (
gromaticus
) of unknown date, named Siculus Flaccus, that Gaius enacted that no one should possess more than 200
iugera
in Italy, can scarcely mean that Gaius reduced the 500 to 200
iugera
, nor is Carcopino’s view likely that the size of the allotments was raised from 30 to 200
iugera
. Possibly the reference is to allotments in colonies. See A. R. Hands,
Mnemosyne
, 1976, 176 ff. D. Stockton,
The Gracchi
(1979), 132 ff., argues that Gaius’ law empowered the commissioners to dispose of public land outside Italy as well as within and envisaged founding colonies as well as viritim assignments. [p. 28]

30 THE EQUITES. Cf. R. J. Rowlands, ‘C. Gracchus and the Equites’,
TAPA
, 1965, 361 ff., who believes that Gracchus deliberately aimed at weakening the Senate and strengthening the Equites (and helping the lower classes) and thus hoped to reform the constitution on the lines of the Polybian mixed constitution. Rowlands has also argued (
Phoenix
, 1969, 372 ff.) that in 123 Gaius had the support in the Senate not only of the old followers of his brother but also some of Aemilianus’ old associates, but the latter abandoned him when in 122 he proceded to more extreme measures. [p. 29].

31 GRACCHUS’ LEX IUDICIARIA. The view that Gracchus’ legislation on the juries in the
quaestio de rebus repetundis
fell into two stages (as, e.g., H. Last in
CAH
, X) has recently been upheld by A. H. M. Jones (
Proc. Cambr. Philological Soc.
, 1960, 39 ff.). Although he rejects two of the arguments on which this view rested, he has strengthened the third; he believes that the curious figure of 450 jurors, mentioned in the Naples Tablet (see below), was taken over from a previous law. This cannot have been the
lex Calpurnia
of 149, but will have been Gracchus’ first proposal (to add Equites to the Senate) and should be identified with a mysterious
lex Iunia
which will have been promulgated or passed in 123 B.C. As to the main law, carried in 122, a large part of a
lex de rebus repetundis
survives on a bronze tablet from Naples (sometimes referred to as the Tabula Bembina because of its association with Cardinal Bembo) and there can be little reasonable doubt that it is part of Gracchus’ law. (Text in Riccobono,
Fontes Iuris Romani AnteJustiniani
, i. 94 ff., E. H. Warmington,
Remains of Old Latin
, iv, 317 ff.; E. G. Hardy, Six Roman Laws, 1 ff.) The attempt by J. Carcopino to identify it with the law of Glaucia (on which see below) has been adequately rejected by J. P. V. D. Balsdon in a valuable paper (
Papers Brit. Sch. Rome
, 1938, 98 ff. = Seager,
Crisis
, 132 ff.) on the history of the extortion-court. In two passages Cicero (1
Verr
. 51; 2
Verr
. i, 26) refers to a
Lex Acilia Repetundarum
, which has generally been identified with Gracchus’ law (e.g. by Mommsen and Last). In a discussion of the
leges de repetundis
G. Tibiletti (
Athenaeum
, 1953, pp. 5 ff.) denied this and, though accepting the identification of the Naples inscription with the law of Gracchus, has supposed the
lex Acilia
to be a measure of lesser importance of
c.
III B.C. E. Badian, however, has successfully defended the identification of the
lex Acilia
with the inscription (
AJP
, 1954, 374 ff. and 1975, 67 ff.).

The debate continues. E. S. Gruen, who accepts the identification of the Naples tablet with the Lex Acilia as part of Gracchus’ legislation, has rejected Jones’ view of the Lex Iunia (
Rom. Pol.
, 293 f.) and also the attempt by A. R. Hands (
Latomus
, 1965, 225 ff.) to represent the lex Acilia as an anti-Gracchan measure. The interpretation of C. Nicolet (
L’Ordre Équestre
(1966), 109 ff., 482 ff.) is precisely opposite to that of Hands: Gracchus sponsored the lex repetundarum but his enemies proposed enrolling Equites in the Senate; see against this Gruen, 295 f. Finally, P. A. Brunt (see Seager,
Crisis
, 107 ff.) argues that Gracchus’ legislation covered more than the
quaestio de repetundis
and deprived Senators of other judicial functions: all the latter, both civil and criminal, were to be dealt with by a mixed panel of senators and Equites. The evidence, however, for the existence of permanent
quaestiones
, other than the
de repetundis
, at the time of Gracchus is frail (but see also Brunt,
Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis
, 1964, 444 ff. in an important review of W. Kunkel,
Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung des röm. Kriminalverfahrens in vorsullanischer Zeit
). Brunt also would date the judiciary legislation to the first half of 123 (cf. above n. 28). See now also D. Stockton,
The Gracchi
(1979), 138 ff., 230 ff., who believes that Gaius passed a general
lex iudiciaria
as well as a
lex de pecuniis repetundis
(and that the inscription is the
repetundae
law of Gaius and more likely than not is a
lex Acilia
).

H. B. Mattingly,
JRS
, 1969, 129 ff., has attempted to rearrange the fragments of Tabula Bembina and to relate them to the fragmentary law from Tarentum (on which see ch. III, n. 18). In
JRS
, 1970, 154 ff. and
Cl. Qu.
, 1974, 255 ff., he adduces some complicated arguments to suggest that the Tabula Bembina is not the law of Gaius Gracchus but is identical with the law of the Tabula Tarentina and is likely to have been the law of Servilius Glaucia (on which see ch. III, n. 19). This view is refuted by A. N. Sherwin-White (
JRS
, 1972, 83 ff.) who reaffirms the usual view that the Tabula Bembina
is
the Gracchan law.

In the inscription unfortunately the passage that should give the positive qualifications of the jurors is missing, but the law contains many interesting details about pro
cedure in the court. On procedure see M. I. Henderson,
JRS
, 1951, 71 ff. and A. N. Sherwin-White,
JRS
, 1952, 43 ff. The law fixed (though possibly not for the first time: cf. Nicolet,
op. cit.
, 47 ff.) the equestrian census, i.e. the minimum qualification for enrolment in the Ordo; the figure was probably 400,000 sesterces. On the Equites see above p. 8 f. and the literature cited in ch. I, n. 9. The jurors were first known as
iudices
, but apparently soon (sometime between 122 and 88) they claimed or acquired the title Equites. The use of Equites in Cicero’s day is obscure; in general terms it meant all free-born Roman citizens who were not senators and who were worth at least 400,000 sesterces. The equestrian jurors were either distinct from the equestrian centuries which were still limited to 1800
iuniores
or else, as argued by M. I. Henderson (
JRS
, 1963, 61 ff. = Seager,
Crisis
, 69 ff.), the equestrian centuries no longer were limited to 1800 members and the mere census qualification allowed a citizen to call himself an
eques Romanus
. Cf. also E. Badian’s remarks (
Roman Imperialism in the Late Republic
²
(1968), vii ff.). [p. 29]