Part 32

His accomplice was C. Servilius Glaucia, like him a man of very high rank, not a freedman, as might be inferred from his name: in a similar manner, a Scipio was nicknamed Serapio, from an actor to whom he bore a likeness. What these two really wanted, is hard to say: if their madness went even to utter recklessness, it might be assumed that they aimed at a tyranny for one of them; but if they believed that Marius would allow such a thing, this were just as great an insanity as that of the drunkard in Shakspeare’s Tempest. We must deem many of the men of that time to have been downright madmen. Of Robespierre also, it can never be said what purpose he had;--very likely he had none whatever. Thus also one of these men wanted to rule, no matter how, and for what end. When now Apuleius was tribune, Marius was consul for the sixth time. It was then that the former really began his career as a legislator, trying to win the favour of the people by a set of seditious motions: his aims were quite different from those which in earlier days were called seditious; he was striving to establish a tyranny, a design indeed which only a general, like Sylla or Cæsar, could have succeeded in carrying out. The legislation of Saturninus, however, has come down to us very obscure: thus much we know, that a most sweeping agrarian law was one of its main features, and that he changed the giving out of corn into a regular distribution of alms. It would seem as if the whole of the lands to be divided by his _Lex agraria_, were situated in Transpadane Gaul; for that they should have been in France itself, is not likely. He is said also to have made a _Lex judiciaria_. He now flattered Marius in every possible way. He wanted to found colonies, and the _coloni_ were to consist of Romans and Italians: for as the Italian allies in the army of Marius, had also very much distinguished themselves, Apuleius favoured them as much as the Romans, and this was what exasperated many of the poorer Roman citizens against the law. Marius was moreover to have the power of giving in each of these colonies the Roman citizenship to three Italian allies, a thing which indeed went beyond all bounds of civil authority. Yet though at that time this was still something quite monstrous, as it trenched upon some of the rights of the sovereign people, no umbrage was taken afterwards when an _imperator_ bestowed the citizenship. These laws were opposed, both on account of their author and their evident tendency, by all right-minded men, even by those who in former days had with all their might withstood the oligarchy; and likewise by the broken-down oligarchs themselves, who now wanted no more than what was reasonable. Hence it was that C. Memmius became the object of the rage of the seditious, though twelve years before, when tribune, he had called upon the people to quell the oligarchy: he had only behaved, as he ever did, like an honest man.

Owing to the Hortensian law, the new _lex agraria_ did not require the sanction of the senate. That that body, however, might not afterwards attack it, Saturninus demanded that the senators should swear to it five days after its adoption by the tribes: and when this was debated in the senate, Marius at first declared, that it ought not to be done; that he would not take the oath, and that he hoped that every well-disposed person would follow his example. It was thought that he acted thus from craftiness, to draw in his enemies, particularly Metellus, to refuse the oath likewise: nor is this impossible. But he may also have honestly meant what he said, though afterwards false friends began to work upon him by means of his unhappy dread of the mob. Cicero had the strength of mind not to allow himself to be thus overawed; he says in a speech of his (_pro Rabirio perduell._) _nihil me clamor iste commovet, sed consolatur, quum indicat esse quosdam cives imperitos, sed non multos_. Neither Plutarch nor Appian have thrown any light upon this subject. At the end of all the laws, there is the following formula, _si quid sacri sanctique est quod non jus sit rogari, ejus hac lege nihil rogatur_; or else, _si quid jus non esset rogarier ejus ea lege nihilum rogatum_.[86] These unlucky advisers now said that, if the law was not passed, blood would flow; but that if it were passed, this clause would give protection against everything in the body of the enactment which was thus made null and void. By such casuistry as this, they got Marius to declare on the fifth day in the senate, that even if they took the oath, they would still have this loophole left them. Thus the oath was taken by Marius, and after him by all the rest, except Q. Metellus Numidicus, who stood out against it with a constancy truly heroic, which does him greater honour than his Numidian victories, and which would lead one to pardon his haughtiness to Marius. In the day of trial, he showed a resolute consistency, and Saturninus, persisting in the course which he had taken, had him dragged out of the senate by his _viator_, and outlawed him (_aqua et igni interdicebat_); on which he went as an exile to Rhodes. The year was passed in horrors. The stain upon Marius’ character is his weakness: from henceforth he always stands in an undecided position, trimming between both factions; and thus he saw himself dependent upon the very storms which surrounded him. As good luck would have it, these fellows carried things so far, that they brought about a fusion of

## parties, and Marius himself, not wanting to have any more to do with

them, was ready to declare against them.

The elections for the consulship were now held, and M. Antonius was unanimously chosen. On the following day, it seemed certain that C. Memmius would be elected: he was one of the most energetic and right-minded men of that age, being probably the tribune in Jugurtha’s time, or if not the same, at least a very near kinsman of his. Against this candidate, who was all but returned, Glaucia and Saturninus raised a tumult: they did not, however, venture to have him assailed in the open market-place; but when he fled into a booth, he was murdered in it. This was too bad to be borne; and Marius was applied to, who when he received the command from the senate, _ut videret ne quid detrimenti res publica caperet_, resolved to uphold the cause of order against the outrages of miscreants: he now called upon the _equites_ and all respectable citizens. In this peril, it was seen how the great might likewise in other times have warded off many things, had they only had the spirit to make a stand. When the rebels found that all were turning against them, they withdrew to the Capitol, and there they were besieged. Marius now showed himself a good general. The _clivus_ was taken, and the culprits sheltered themselves within the strong walls of the Capitoline temple, which it was looked upon as a crime to storm. As the water was conveyed thither by the pipes of the _aqua Marcia_, Marius ordered them to be cut off; so that the besieged must have perished from hunger and thirst. That most ancient well, therefore, which had supplied the Romans with water in the days of the Gallic invasion, must already at this time have been in the same state that it is now: it is altogether neglected, and every kind of filth is thrown into it. Glaucia was for setting fire to the temple, and thus dying; but the others, who had hopes of saving their lives, would not do this, and they surrendered at discretion. The most guilty were shut up in the Curia Hostilia, that they might be brought to justice. Yet either there was a change of feeling in the populace, or else the government, not to bring upon themselves the odium of putting so many men of rank to death, got up a sham riot: the roof of the Curia was scaled, and from thence the rebels were slain by the rioters. Marius’ conduct now reconciled to him men’s minds again; he retraced some of his steps, and even agreed to have Metellus recalled from banishment. Saturninus’ laws seem to have been repealed, as those of Livius were afterwards.

Thus ended this insurrection, which indeed is best understood by Velleius Paterculus. Marius for his own part retired into private life, and he had not a thought of making himself a tyrant.

M. LIVIUS DRUSUS.

The republic was shaken to its very centre, the great point of contest being the administration of justice. The _equites_ had so abused their power as judges, that they had public opinion against them: this was

## partly owing to their jealousy against the senate, and partly on

account of their quarrels with individual senators in the provinces. The system of general farmers of the revenue had become more and more developed; the companies had leases of the mines, customs, tithes, and such like things, and some of them put their money out to usury; and they exacted from the people in the provinces much more than these were bound to give. They had again their sub-farmers; thus for instance, the _publicans_ in the gospel were the agents of the _publicani_. The same thing is done to this day. The contract for feeding the galley slaves, was only a short time since given by the Roman government to an actress, who had a very fair price paid to her for it, so much a head being allowed her; but she sublet the contract to others, each making a trifling profit on it, down to the very last of them, and the prisoners were literally all but starved. If a consul or proconsul had ground the people in the provinces, and screened the _publicani_, he was safe at Rome when prosecuted; but if a man who was just and blameless thwarted the revenue farmers in their exactions, they would revenge themselves by charging him with extortion, and get a verdict against him by means of false witnesses. This was the fate of P. Rutilius, and it excited universal indignation. It was impossible to find any check for this, as each one always supported the rest. The ill-blood which there was at that time between the senate and the knights, is to be found among all nations, at a certain stage of their progress, between the land-owners and the monied men; as is now the case throughout Europe. The senate, the _optimates_, held the great bulk of the landed property; the _equites_, on the other hand, possessed the capital with which the great commercial speculations were carried on. Moreover there were in Rome many circumstances under which monied property might be abused to the detriment of the nation, and every one who belonged to the government, was, owing to the ways in which the courts of justice were constituted, at the mercy of the _equites_. With regard to all these matters, Montesquieu, admirable as he generally is, is mistaken; and on the whole, they have not been well explained by modern writers, though they may be brought very clearly before our mind’s eye. There was now an open war against the judicial power, stirred up by the tyranny of the latter.

The happy ending of the war with the Cimbri and Teutones, and the putting down of the rebellion of Saturninus, were followed by a season of precarious tranquillity in which no thinking man could indeed have been blind to the real state of Rome, though the common herd might have felt as if all was going on right. Yet the symptoms of its being necessary to bring the great questions of the age to a definitive decision, showed themselves more and more. Things had come to that pass, that no one seems to have thought of a reform which could have given relief, though many changes were made; and it is one of the signs of the times, that those who wanted to rise in the world, had to begin by making themselves popular, after which they went over to the opposite side. Thus it was that Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus transferred the nomination to the pontificate and the other priestly offices, from the colleges, which used to fill up their own numbers, to the tribes; and this was indeed so managed that the smaller half of the tribes was chosen by lot to be the electors. In the earliest times, the right of choice undoubtedly belonged to the patricians alone; when, however, the patricians and plebeians shared these offices between them, plebeians also were added to the voters; but afterwards, when the curies were no longer assembled, but were become altogether changed, it was quite natural, that the election should be left to the colleges themselves. The clause that the lesser half of the tribes was to elect, seems to have been based on an old form of expression, the patricians, when they were still in existence, having been called (perhaps in the twelve tables) _minor pars populi_; a different meaning was now given to it. This was the last trace which remained of the old constitution.

The two questions which filled the minds of every one, were the courts of justice and the citizenship of the allies. The want of a change in the former, was strongly felt by the best men as well as the worst. People like Mucius Scævola, whose behaviour in the provinces had been quite exemplary--he came to the Asiatics like an angel from heaven, his conduct was really most touching--ran the greatest risk of being condemned though altogether guiltless; the worst men, from quite opposite motives, had the same wish for a reform of the courts, as they would then be acquitted by the senators. The question of the citizenship of the Italians bore the closest analogy with that of the emancipation of the Roman Catholics in Ireland. Every one was well inclined to it: but then things would take an unfavourable turn; a great many interests came in the way, and people again would have nothing to do with it. This is one of the most melancholy conditions in which a free state can be, when there is no knowing how to heal an evil which is manifest to every one. The allies had, even from the days of the tribuneship of Tib. Gracchus, been taught to ask for the Roman citizenship, which was their “emancipation.” Thirty years had now passed since then; they had often had great hopes, which had been blighted over and over again. Whereas in former times, the relations of Rome towards her allies had been more friendly than those of any ruling city, the most bitter hatred now arose. The very people who sometimes had held out hopes to the Italians, inveighed against it, when those allies put forth their claims too insolently. As far as we can judge of all the facts, nothing had been done for them with the exception of one law, by which the tithe from the _ager publicus_ was abolished; this, however, we only know from Appian. They now urged their demands more strongly than ever, and the right of Roman citizenship was even becoming more valuable in their eyes; for they were getting more and more like the Romans, they had learned to speak the same language, and yet in war and in peace they were to be subject to the sway of Roman masters. In this fermentation, the rulers at Rome were greatly terrified; but whenever they came to a decision, they only increased the irritation. Thus some Italians had quietly taken to themselves the right of citizenship; one of them, M. Peperna,[87] had even attained to the consulate and the censorship, and now it was found out that he was not lawfully a citizen. In the general breaking up, everything at Rome fell into confusion: the calendar was in the time of Cæsar, owing to arbitrary intercalations, more than eighty days behindhand; and in a like manner, the census had been disturbed by the admission of allies, as they had assumed the character of citizens, and the censors had classed them in the tribes. Now in the _lex Mucia Licinia_, the mad resolution was suddenly come to, of making strict inquiries into this matter, and striking off all those who were not citizens in the fullest sense of the word. This could not but have exasperated an immense number of people: but the infatuation which then prevailed everywhere was inconceivable.

By degrees however, a considerable party in the senate became convinced that a reform must take place; and these were the sons of the very men who had baffled the plans of the Gracchi. They wanted to make an attempt to remedy the evil, the reform most urgently called for being a change in the judicial system. But this was opposed by all the immense influence of the _equites_, which was so great as to make even Polybius say that, in his times, few people only had nothing to do with them. To carry this out, men now thought of giving the full franchise to the Latins and allies; and this ought to have been done at any rate. Under these circumstances, M. Livius Drusus, the son of him who during the tribuneship of Gracchus had gotten an unhappy celebrity, a man of uncommon talent, whose hands were clean, became tribune, and thought upon remedies: all sensible people and the chief persons in the state joined with him to hinder a revolution by means of a reform. Here again much is obscure; for in what belongs to these later ages, we are sometimes much more under the necessity of guessing, than with regard to the earlier times: then the form was a reality, being based upon numbers; now, it had wholly lost its meaning. What is most likely, is that a statement of Appian after all is correct, according to which it was the chief aim of Drusus to bring in a mixed system, and not to give back the administration of justice to the senators alone, which would have caused a revolution. By the _lex Servilia_, the rule had already been laid down, that the judges in the courts should be divided between the knights and the senators; but this did not last long. The senate consisted of three hundred men, and to these, it is said, he meant to add three hundred knights; from both of them combined, the jury was to be chosen by lot: for ever since the days of C. Gracchus, there was really a system like that of trial by jury. The English antiquaries have wanted to find it even at an earlier period; but they were wrong: in civil cases there were still single _arbitri_; but for political offences, and also for felony, there were _quæstiones perpetuæ_ which were analogous to the modern jury courts. It is probable that by this measure of reform, one half of the jury must have been made up of senators, and the other of knights. Thus M. Livius offered to these last an advantage which they might have as a compensation, instead of the exclusive exercise of the judicial power. To this another law was tacked, by which _quæstiones_ were to be appointed, to inflict punishment on any one who should be convicted of having given wrong judgment for the sake of a bribe, or from favour. What was to be the form of these _quæstiones_, is more than we can tell; in all likelihood they were to be held by the tribes. But there were very many knights, who had no wish whatever to be in the senate: it was much more agreeable to them to stand highest among those who did not belong to that body, and instead of sharing its moral responsibility, to be always able to find fault and to judge. It seems moreover that the law of Drusus did not enact that the three hundred of each class were to be kept distinct for ever; it is more likely that this filling up of the senate was only thought of as a transitory measure, and that eventually the judicial power was to rest again with the senate. The knights now said that this was neither more nor less than a scheme to outwit them; that they would afterwards have a senate of six hundred, into which more knights were admitted than there used to be, but that the courts of justice would be taken out of their hands. Yet the plan of Drusus seems after all to have been the best thing that could have been done at that time; as he also meant to give the citizenship to the Italians, thus renewing the strength of the higher classes by bringing in a fresh aristocracy, and enlarging the Roman state into a nation. He likewise aimed at restoring the middle classes, and carrying through a new agrarian law in favour of the Romans and Italians: but about this we know very little indeed. Yet as the Italians were more closely connected with the Romans, than with the Umbrians and Etruscans from whom they were politically severed; the same split showed itself between these two masses, which there had been in the time of C. Gracchus between the Romans, on the one hand, and the Latins and Italians, on the other. The Latins were in the colonies scattered all over Italy from Valentia in Bruttium to the foot of the Alps, and in the few old Latin towns which had not yet got the right of citizenship, as Tibur and Præneste; by Italians were meant the Sabellian peoples, the Sabines, the Marsians and their confederates, the Picentines, Samnites, and perhaps also the Lucanians, unless the condition of these had been made worse by the war of Hannibal. Very likely the boon was not intended to be given to Apulians and Sallentines, where the Greek element was paramount. All the rest were looked upon as foreigners; and therefore nothing was said in this matter about the Umbrians, Etruscans, Bruttians, and the Greek maritime towns. Yet we may learn from the history of every free state, how the growth of such claims will keep spreading wider and wider. At Geneva, there had long been a struggle between the _citoyens_ and _bourgeois_,[88] and the latter of these won for themselves the same rights as the former. Then started up the claims of the _natifs_, who had been born in Geneva of foreign parents, and had sided with the _representants_ in their quarrel with the _negatifs_; and in the revolution of 1789 they were granted the full franchise. But then came also the _habitants_, the strangers, and demanded the same rights. Such a succession of claimants is to be found in all republics, whenever there is any stagnation in them. The history of Drusus is the _crux historicorum_, unless one speculates on the state of things in a thoroughly practical spirit. Freinsheim, who lived entirely among his books, and who never thought of looking at what had happened in his own city of Strasburg, was not able to understand those relations; he was quite bewildered by them. Without this kind of knowledge, the tribuneship of Drusus is a riddle: he is said to have been an aristocrat, and still to have been popular.