Part 25

The year 611 was that of the consulship of Q. Pompeius, who, to distinguish him from another of the same name, is called _Auli filius_: he was appointed to the command in Spain. He is the ancestor of Cn. Pompeius Magnus, who stood at the head of the aristocracy of his day, and he himself figured as one of the leaders of that class, although the son of a very humble musician. As he leagued himself with the _nobiles_, he was welcome to them, and was received into their ranks; so that even before he was consul, he had already a powerful party. How he raised himself, is uncertain: according to some, he did it by dishonourable means; yet he was a man of talent. His very opposite was Tib. Sempronius Gracchus, who was of a plebeian house, but of most ancient nobility: the latter was at the head of the popular party. Q. Pompeius led his army against the Numantines, and was unsuccessful: they took his camp, and brought him to very great straits. Being in this plight, he offered peace: the Numantines, but only for form’s sake, were to give hostages, whom he was to return to them; they were also to pay a certain sum, and to promise to serve in the field. This they also did. But this most reasonable peace did not please at Rome, nor was Pompeius fool enough to believe that it would; his successor, by order of the senate, disregarded it altogether. The Numantines sent ambassadors to Rome, and appealed to the treaties, in which they were borne out by the Roman staff-officers: but the senate annulled the peace, Pompeius himself doing his utmost to bring this about, that he might not be called to account for the way in which he had conducted the war. Hostilities were renewed on a greater scale; and a few years afterwards the command fell to C. Hostilius Mancinus, a man who had the ill luck to gain a great celebrity and a sort of moral notoriety which indeed is of a very doubtful nature. The frightened Spaniards had abandoned Numantia to its fate, and Mancinus had reached as far as the _suburbana_, the gardens and cemeteries of the town: there he was driven back in an engagement; the Numantines pursued, and the Romans, retreating in blind haste, got into a place from which there was no way out, so that they had to make up their minds either to sue for peace or perish. At first, the Numantines would have nothing to say to the conditions offered by Mancinus, favourable as they were; it was only Tib. Gracchus, then serving as a quæstor, who could save the army. The Numantines had not forgotten the equitable peace which his father had made, but the remembrance of his upright conduct towards all the Celtiberians was so dear to them, that they accepted the son as a mediator, being convinced that he meant honestly. So great was the respect in which he was held by them, that he betook himself in the midst of them to Numantia, to get back his account-books, which, as well as the camp, had fallen into their hands; and these were also returned to him uninjured. The army, which, without reckoning the allies, numbered twenty thousand men, was allowed to march off without disgrace, and independence and friendship were stipulated for Numantia. Mancinus afterwards played at Rome the same part which Sp. Postumius had done after the Caudine peace: he recommended the senate to yield up himself and the officers, to atone for the unauthorized peace. The people agreed to this, so far as he was concerned; but it threw out the clause as to the officers, out of regard for Tib. Gracchus. Mancinus was delivered up: the noble-minded Numantines would not have him, that the curse of a broken oath might fall upon those who were guilty.

The war lasted yet a few years longer without any result; so that the Romans were driven, in spite of the laws, (as Appian says,) to elect Scipio Africanus consul. Ten years had already passed away since his first consulship, and the _leges annales_ could not have prescribed an age which he had not reached already; perhaps there was a law that no one should be consul twice. Scipio went forth with many recruits, allies, and volunteers from all parts, with Numidians and men from the far East, against that small people, to root it out from the earth. All the proffers of the Numantines were rejected. Scipio found a great degeneracy in the Roman troops; and it cost him a vast deal of trouble to restore discipline, as the loose morals and the luxury which were rife among individuals, were likewise spreading in the army: he purified it, and then marched with sixty thousand men against Numantia. This city was surrounded on three sides by the Douro, and it lay therefore on an isthmus, which was strongly fortified. Around the town, the circumference not being more than three Roman miles, (one German,) Scipio now drew a line of pallisades with a rampart, and behind it a second one,--just as Platææ was shut in by the Spartans,--and here he distributed his army. On these lines, he placed engines for hurling missiles, with which the Romans tried to keep off their desperate foes, as they wanted to destroy them by hunger. For a while, some of them escaped on the Douro, by which the besieged also got supplies; but he cut them off even from this, by sinking above the town huge beams armed with saws into the river, so that the rafts with flour could no longer float down that way. How long this dreadful blockade lasted, is more than we can tell. Once, however, some Numantines climbed over the walls, and came to a distant town where some hundred youths enthusiastically took up arms; and thus a general rising against the Romans was on the eve of bursting forth. When Scipio found this out, he forthwith marched thither, and had the hands of those who were guilty cut off. Such an atrocity stamps the man. The Numantines, when they had fed, first on the dead bodies of the enemy, and then on those of their own countrymen, and gone through all those horrors which Missolunghi had to suffer, wished at length to capitulate. Scipio demanded that their arms should be given up, and that they should surrender at discretion: they asked for three days, which they spent in freeing their wives and children by death from slavery; so that a few of them only came out, who were like skeletons. Of these, Scipio picked out fifty for his triumph, who seem to have been beheaded afterwards: the rest were sold; but they are said to have broken out with such rage, some of them killing themselves, and others murdering their masters, that after a short time not a Numantine was left alive. The place where the town had stood, from henceforth became a waste.

THE SERVILE WAR IN SICILY. ACQUISITION OF THE KINGDOM OF PERGAMUS. ARISTONICUS. DOMESTIC AFFAIRS.

The punishment for so foul a deed was not slow in overtaking the Romans. Even before the fall of Numantia, a servile war broke out in Sicily; though indeed this does not so much belong to Roman, as to Grecian history. It was brought on by the depopulation of the island owing to the many wars in which famine and pestilence were raging, as in Germany during the Thirty Years’ war. Twenty-four years had not yet passed since the first Punic war, when the second completed the misery of Sicily: it was in a state of desolation, like that of Ireland after the peace of Limerick, in the times of William III. Much of the land was made _ager publicus_, and thus fell into the hands of speculators; in this way there arose large estates in Sicily, which were chiefly used for grazing. Thus (according to the _Codex Theodosianus_) nearly the whole of Lucania, Bruttium, and Calabria, in the days of Honorius and Arcadius, was pasture land, of which the owners, who were partly Romans, partly Siciliotes, kept large studs of horses and herds of cattle. Herdsmen in Italy are a degenerate race of men: they are, almost all of them, as far as I know, (in the States of the Church and in the kingdom of Naples,--in Tuscany there are few of them,) the associates of robbers: the herdsman is as bad and as robber-like, as the peasant, on the other hand, is respectable. On these large estates, there was an immense number of slaves,--often as many as thousands together on one alone. The traffic in slaves, owing to the wars and the continual piracy of those times, had reached a fearful height; so that at the slave-market in Delos, ten thousand are said to have been sold in one day, and they were to be had for a mere trifle. They were treated with the greatest cruelty, and had to work in the fields in chains; of course, there were among them many respectable men from all parts, Carthaginians, Achæans, Macedonians, Celtiberians, and others, who deserved quite a different fate, and could not but thirst for the blood of their tyrants. Thus the Servile war broke out in Sicily, and it is not to be wondered at that there was then another of these risings in Greece: the cause was everywhere the same. In Greece, tillage had formerly been mostly the business of the freedmen, and it was only of late that it had fallen into the hands of the slaves. The war had now reached its fourth year; several Roman armies had been utterly routed, and it required a consular one under P. Rupilius to reduce the island (620): for the slaves were masters of the strongest places, Enna and Tauromenium, and they had for their leader Eunus (Εὔνους), a Syrian, who, like Jean François at St. Domingo in the year 1791, put on the diadem in due form. The struggle was carried on with the same relentless cruelty which slaves have met with everywhere, as in the West Indies and in North America. Sicily was laid utterly waste by it, and thirty years afterwards, the same circumstances led to the same results. The details are awfully interesting; yet, as we have said before, they are not in their place here.

In the meanwhile, Attalus Philometor of Pergamus, the son of Eumenes, died, and with him the race of Philetærus became extinct. The first kings of Pergamus whom the Romans had raised to greatness, were on the whole clever men and mild princes; and under their rule the country flourished: this state of things was a desirable one, although, if looked upon in a moral point of view, much might be said against it. But the last Attalus was a tyrant and a wicked wretch, such as is only to be met with in the East, where a certain perversity reaches its highest pitch, and takes delight in what is most unnatural and revolting: in a word, he was an incarnate fiend, like Sultan Ibrahim. The only art in which he employed himself, was that of cultivating deadly plants and of preparing poison: it was sport to him, to get those who were his nearest kindred out of the world. He bequeathed the whole of his kingdom to the Romans; and indeed he could not well have done otherwise, as every one of his dispositions had still to be approved of by the Romans, who would hardly have acknowledged the rule of any one else. They took it as a property which of right belonged to them, very much as a master might take the goods of one of his freedmen who had not been fully emancipated, and had died without leaving a will. Thus Rome had a new province, which, however, was to be won by the sword, as Aristonicus, a bastard son of Eumenes, laid claim to the throne. According to the notions of the East, this defect of birth was not a bar to the succession, so that, but for the will of Attalus, he would have been the lawful heir. He had very little trouble in getting hold of the diadem soon after the death of his brother; for the people had a horror of the Roman rule, and they had learned to know the tyranny and rapacity of the Roman prætors and proconsuls who made their appearance every year: many towns declared for him; others, like Ephesus, which had lately gained their freedom by the help of Rome, took up arms against him. How he came to believe that he could hold out, is quite inconceivable. He had no aid whatever: in his neighbourhood were Pontus, Cappadocia, and Bithynia, all three of which were only small kingdoms, and the two last quite unwarlike; the Syrian kings were likewise tottering to their fall, and their whole attention was turned to the East, where the Parthian empire was spreading farther and farther, and Babylon was already conquered. There was not a soul in the world who could help Andronicus; and yet he would engage in the mad undertaking of raising war against the Romans. But the struggle lasted longer than one would have thought: not only did the womanish inhabitants of Lydia and Ionia, countries which are an earthly paradise, carry it on with great resolution, but the pretender had likewise many Thracians in his pay. The Romans, on the other hand, were badly commanded: their leaders thought of nothing but enriching themselves; they were very glad when wealthy towns rebelled, as they could then plunder them. Rome had not only a consular army, but also troops from Bithynia and Pontus; a Roman general, P. Licinius Crassus, was even defeated and taken prisoner. This man has some name in history; and yet, his rapacity was so abominable, that the Asiatics ill-treated his dead body because of it: so cheap was it at that time to be deemed a man of honour. He died, however, a noble death, himself asking to be killed. At length, M. Perperna overcame Aristonicus, and took him prisoner; but M. Aquillius snatched the triumph from him. This is of later date than the tribuneship of Tib. Gracchus (619); that is to say, in 622.[63]

The province of Asia was now regularly formed, but within narrower limits. Rome was generous to the native princes: Nicomedes had his territory enlarged, and Great Phrygia was given to Mithridates of Pontus. But in the latter case, this was not done before the tribuneship of C. Gracchus, who, however, seems to have spoken against it, Mithridates having perhaps gotten this quite unnecessary cession of land by bribing the Roman commissioners.

The changes in the constitution of Rome in those days, are most of them unimportant, as the distinction between patrician and plebeian was now at an end. In 622, for the first time, two plebeians are censors; in 580 already, both the consuls were from the same order. Here we find this entry in the Capitoline Fasti, _ambo primi de plebe_: Livy makes no remark whatever about it, circumstances having become so ripe for the change, that no one even thought any longer of putting any obstacle in the way of a plebeian. Dionysius says, that in his time not more than fifty patrician families were still left, which is to be understood of actual families, and not of _gentes_, of which there may have been only about fifteen. As _gentes_, they are no longer held in any account: these had lost their importance together with the curies. In a _gens_, moreover, all the families were not ennobled: of the Claudia, there was only one; of the Valeria, the Messalæ; the Cornelia consisted of Scipiones, Lentuli, Cethegi, Sullæ (these last being added but of late); in the Æmilia, were the Lepidi, and perhaps also the Scauri. But of the plebeian _familiæ nobiles_ there was a very great number, and they were still ever increasing. Of the senate, by far the larger part belonged to them; ever since the end of the war with Hannibal, most of the prætors were likewise plebeians, scarcely one out of six being a patrician: nor does it seem as if any stress had been laid on it; it was merely the effect of time. In the troubles of the Gracchi, we find the families quite indiscriminately in both

## parties. Appius Claudius, sprung from a family which in former times

had headed the patricians against the plebeians, was the father-in-law of Tib. Gracchus, and sided with him, and carried through all the laws put forth by him; whilst, on the other hand, those, who were the most enraged against the Gracchi, and the most interested in withstanding them, were, with the exception of Scipio Nasica, all of them plebeians. The feuds had long been settled, and they had passed to the _novi homines_ and _nobiles_, the latter of whom were in the last century very incorrectly called patricians, especially by foreigners (the French). This change has been known ever since the revival of learning. The censorship remained forty years longer than the consulship in the possession of the patricians; for as the elections for this were only every five years, there were still men enough to fill it.

About the same time, the holding the ædileship by turns must have been done away with; and certainly this office must of late have been a heavy burthen upon the patricians, as it entailed considerable expense.

The tribuneship of the people had quite changed character; the tribune holding arbitrary sway just like any tyrant. A tribune (C. Atinius Labeo), a few years after Gracchus, wanted to have the censor Metellus thrown from the Tarpeian rock for having excluded him from the senate; and it was only with difficulty that his family succeeded in getting another tribune to intercede for him. Such instances are not unseldom met with, as the tribunes themselves no longer knew what their office meant. It was very likely the same Atinius, who brought in the law that the tribunes were _eo ipso_ senators, and could only be excluded by the same rules as other senators.

TIBERIUS SEMPRONIUS GRACCHUS.

There was a time when the name of the Gracchi was cried down, when they were looked upon as the leaders of a tyrannical onslaught upon the property of others; and there was another time, when they had a renown which would have certainly been most hateful to themselves. Both of these opinions are now entirely exploded; and, although the complicated system of the _ager publicus_ is not yet understood everywhere, still I do not believe that any one in Germany--unless indeed it be in some corner of Austria--holds the old views with regard to the Gracchi. The French still cling a little to their false prejudices; but in America my account of the matter is already the one generally received, as a reviewer of my history in a North American periodical has especially pointed out.

Tiberius Gracchus was the son of Tiberius Gracchus the elder who had made the peace with the Celtiberians, and of Cornelia, the daughter of the first Scipio Africanus, who was given in marriage to her husband, not, as Livy says, by her father, but, after his death, by her family: both of these were, even in the midst of the thorough corruption of that age, acknowledged to have been people of the highest virtue, in whom the olden times were living again. Of their many children, few only remained alive--in fact, out of twelve not more than three, namely the two brothers, Tiberius and Caius, and the daughter, who was married to the younger Scipio (_Paulli fil._). The sons were brought up under the eye of the mother by distinguished Greeks, and by a Campanian, C. Blossius, who was a perfect Grecian, writing Greek, and even composing poetry in Greek: he was, as we now know, the author of Rhintonian comedies,[64] a proof of the flourishing state of Greek literature at that time in Italy, of which Cicero also informs us. He was the teacher and friend of Tiberius of whom he was somewhat the elder, and a follower of Stoic philosophy, a system which in those days was congenial to the aspirations of all generous minds, and was

## particularly welcome to a nation like the Romans. When Tiberius, owing

to the great favour which he had with the people, had been raised step by step to honours, and he had gained glory already at Carthage, where with C. Fannius he was the first to mount the wall, he became a quæstor and made the peace with Numantia. Its not being ratified greatly exasperated him. Unfortunately, we have for this period only desultory works from second or third hand, such as those of Appian and Plutarch: the latter of these wrote the lives of the Gracchi with much feeling, but without any knowledge of the true state of affairs, the moral part in him, being, however, really beautiful; moreover, like Appian, he is led astray by the gossip of any writer. Thus Plutarch allows himself to be beguiled into the belief that the vanity of Tiberius had been hurt by the repudiation of the peace; but of a soul such as that of Tiberius, we may safely say that its motives for anger were different. He had concluded the peace as an honest man, and to see it trampled upon in defiance of all good faith, embittered him against the men who then were in power. How a character like Gracchus in such times as those must have felt bound to take in hand these dangerous πολιτεύματα, may best be shown from the Servile war in Sicily, where the real canker which lay at the root of the whole state of society is laid bare.

The _ager publicus_[65] was the land taken in war, of which the ownership belonged to the commonwealth, but the possession was given up to Roman citizens, or to foreigners, on the payment of certain outgoings, such as the tithes on the produce of the arable land and of the live stock; a _scriptura_ on the pasture land according to the number of the cattle; and other things of the kind. By the Licinian law[66] it had been enacted that no one should possess more than five hundred _jugera_ of the _ager publicus_, but that he might transfer the occupancy as if it were his property: yet the possessor was, after all, only a precarious occupant, _a tenant at will_,[67] whom the real owner might turn out, whenever he liked. If he possessed more than was allowed by law, he was liable to punishment, and what was above the quantity was to be confiscated: the state, however, might, of course, at any time take back the whole.