BOOK Policy of Marcus being prevented perhaps by ill-health; and he died soon after. Publius Licinius Crassus, who had been elected as a member of the triumvirate in place of Tiberius, obtained the consulship for the year 131 B.C. This might have enabled him to push on vigorously the execution of the agrarian law; but being a most ambitious man and bent on accumulating wealth, he longed for the command in Asia against Aristonicus, the natural son of the late king Attalus of Pergamum, who disputed the pretended testament of his father, and aspired to the throne himself. Although Crassus was Pontifex Maximus, and as such legally prevented from leaving Italy to take a foreign command, he was nevertheless designated to prosecute the war in Asia. We shall see in another chapter, that in this war he not only failed in obtaining an easy victory and the coveted booty, but met with an ignominious defeat and an inglorious death. Mucius Scævola, who is reported to have approved the agrarian law of Gracchus from the lawyer's point of view, showed not the slightest inclination as consul in 133 B.C. to stand up for the defence of the reformer when he was murdered by his assailants, and after the catastrophe he formally joined the party of the victors. Of other men, who, like Metellus Macedonicus, have been named among the leaders of the popular party, it is not known that they in any way took a prominent part in the struggle. Only two stand out as exceptions. These were Caius Papirius Carbo and Marcus Fulvius Flaccus. The latter of these threatened in 132 B.C. to accuse Nasica, the murderer of Gracchus, and thereby induced the senate to save their champion by sending him away from Rome on a diplomatic mission to Asia. Carbo, who was bold enough publicly to lament the death of Tiberius Gracchus,' was elected tribune of the people for the year 131 в.C., and 1 Cicero, de Orat. ii. 40, 170. This is, by the way, a proof of what has been said above (p. 410), that the victorious party showed great forbearance to their defeated enemies. The same inference may be made from the bold attitude assumed by Flaccus in his attack upon Nasica. in this office succeeded in carrying the popular measure of applying the ballot, which had already been introduced in elections of magistrates and judicial assemblies of the people, to the ratification of laws by the popular vote. Perhaps this innovation was considered by the nobility to be of no great moment after Publius Scipio had approved it in the case of the Cassian law; and moreover it may have been discovered that secret voting did not to any considerable extent weaken the influence of the nobility. or affect the decision of the people. But when Carbo came forward with a second proposal, and endeavoured to remove the legal obstacle to the re-election of tribunes which had proved so fatal to Tiberius Gracchus, he met with the most determined opposition not only on the part of the uncompromising chiefs of the aristocracy, but also on the part of its more moderate supporters. Scipio Emilianus used all his influence to defeat this measure, and, in a speech which he delivered on this occasion, declared before the assembled people that in his opinion Tiberius Gracchus, if he was aiming at illegal power, had been justly put to death. As the people murmured and interrupted him, the haughty Scipio commanded them to be silent with these memorable words: Let no man speak to whom Italy is but a stepmother,' and when the uproar increased at this insolent taunt, he added: Do you think I fear the men whom I brought here in chains, now that they are set free?' The people were cowed by this haughty spirit, and Carbo's proposed law was rejected.1 Nevertheless Carbo had infused new life into the popular party, and we perceive a renewed agitation in their ranks. For the year 129 B.C. Carbo was elected with Caius Gracchus and Marcus Fulvius Flaccus triumvir for the assignment of land in pursuance of the Sempronian law. These three men, it appears, now seriously endeavoured to carry out the provisions of the agrarian law. They thus provoked a more determined resistance on the Livius, 59. Valer. Max. vi. 2, 3. CHAP. III. New com mission for carrying out the Sempronian law. BOOK Indirect suspension of the law. part of the nobility. According to the law, the triumvirs were entrusted with judicial authority to decide all questions of disputed possession, and to fix the boundaries. of those lands which were to be resumed by the state for assignment to new settlers. These questions must have been most intricate, as accurate and trustworthy records and title-deeds were not in existence. In most cases the decisions of the triumvirs must have been to some extent arbitrary, and they must have cut short the arguments of the interested parties on grounds of what they considered the public interest. As long as men of the popular party, personal friends and adherents of Tiberius Gracchus, had these final decisions in their hands, there was some prospect that the spirit of the agrarian law would be carried out. But now the nobility made a stand. The triumvirs were deprived of their right of deciding all disputed questions of ownership and occupation, and this right was transferred to the consuls. Here again Scipio Emilianus led the opposition against the democratic party, and it was no doubt his great influence which determined the decision of the people.2 By this decision the agrarian law was made almost a dead letter. The nobility had the consular elections in their hands, and it was not likely that consuls elected by their influence would be anxious to injure the possessors of public lands by deciding disputed questions in a way injurious to their interests. Nay, it was very doubtful whether they would busy themselves with any such litigation at all. They could allege that they were too much occupied with other affairs, as they actually did after the passing of the law. The consul Sempronius Tuditanus, to whom nominally the judicial office was entrusted, left ut The provision of the agrarian law of Gracchus is shortly defined by Livius, 58 promulgavit (Tib. Gracchus) et aliam legem agrariam. iidem triumviri iudicarent, qua publicus ager, qua privatus esset. 2 The repeal of the important paragraph in the Sempronian law must have been effected by a plebiscitum; for a senatus consultum could not alter an existing law. Rome and Italy, and made an expedition against the Iapydes in Istria, leaving the triumvirs without a ground on which they could operate. CHAP. of the Latin and Italian a'lies. At the same time a second difficulty presented itself. Opposition The agrarian law of Tiberius Gracchus applied to all the public land of Italy, including not only that portion which was occupied by Roman citizens, but also the lands in the occupation of Latins and other allies. It is likely that the triumvirs had begun their operations with the land situated within the thirty-five Roman tribes. The possessors, disturbed or alarmed by these operations, were therefore Roman citizens exclusively. The intended new settlement was so far an internal question for the body of the citizens. But it could not remain so. When the triumvirs began to survey the public land occupied by Latins, as a preliminary step to its confiscation and assignment, the owners of land throughout Italy caught the alarm, and made an effort to stay the execution of the law. The Latins took their stand on compacts made between them and the republic, by which the public land had been solemnly granted to them for their use. They argued therefore, with all appearance of justice on their side, that the Romans had no claim to these lands, and could not resume them. Such arguments as these were naturally acceptable to all the opponents of the Sempronian law in Rome, and the Italians accordingly found their cause taken up by the nobility, especially by Publius Scipio Emilianus. Rome was again violently agitated. In the various Italian communities the same classes and interests were opposed to each other as in Rome.' Whilst the possessors complained of confiscation, and protested against the law as unjust, the Italian peasants saw in it a deliverance from dependence and poverty, just as the poor Romans situated like themselves had done. The city 1 Appian, Bell. Civ.i. 10: Toιaîť ékaтépwv (i.e. the occupiers of public lands and the poor) όδυρομένων τε καὶ ἀλλήλοις ἐπικαλούντων πλῆθος ἄλλο ὅσον ἐν τοῖς ἀποίκοις πόλεσιν ἢ ταῖς ἰσοπολίτισιν ἢ ἄλλως ἐκοινώνει τῆσδε τῆς γῆς, δεδιότες ὁμοίως ἐπῄεσαν καὶ ἐς ἑκατέρους αὐτῶν διεμερίζοντο, κ.τ.λ. BOOK Death of nus. of Rome was thronged by crowds of Italians, who, divided against each other, strove to obtain a hearing from the leading men, and to get their alleged rights or claims allowed. The task of Scipio was not easy. To gratify the wishes of both parties was impossible. Being called upon to declare his views, he pronounced in favour of the occupiers of public lands, and offered to defend the rights which had been secured to them by solemn treaties. With this declaration Scipio had finally abandoned his conciliatory policy, and had joined the ranks of those who were the uncompromising opponents of the whole Sempronian reform. In the midst of this great commotion, when the fate of thousands seemed to depend on the decision taken by the foremost man in Rome, this man was suddenly removed by a mysterious death. After a meeting of the senate in which he had spoken with great applause, Scipio had gone to his house accompanied by a great number of senators and a crowd of the common people. In the evening of the day he had retired into his closet to prepare a speech for the following day. In the morning he was found dead in his bed. In times of excitement people are inclined to look for the explanation of unexpected and startling events not to natural causes which would easily occur to unprejudiced observers, but to such causes as are suggested by a heated imagination, though they have neither probability nor evidence to support them. The death of great men, it is supposed, must be extraordinary, and the vulgar revel in stories of secret conspiracy and murder. It is not, therefore, surprising that the sudden death of Scipio, in the midst of a great political crisis, should have given rise to suspicions of murder. Though there was no particle of evidence against anybody, though there was not even any proof that he had died a violent death, the most reckless charges were brought, and are still maintained, against several persons, among whom were not only personal enemies, but his own mother. The very multiplicity of these charges shows that they are |