nothing but wild conjectures. After a minute and careful examination of the circumstances, there appears to be no reason to doubt that Scipio's death was natural. This seems to be satisfactorily established, if there were no other evidence, by that of C. Lælius, who was for many years Scipio's intimate friend and adherent. Lælius composed a memoir of his friend, which Q. Fabius Maximus, the brother of the deceased,' made use of in the speech he delivered at the funeral. In this speech the death is ascribed to sickness,2 a fact which we can believe the more easily, as, according to Plutarch,3 he was by nature of a weak constitution. The sudden death was therefore easily accounted for, and the majority of people were satisfied that there had been no foul play. The funeral was in one sense private, for it was not at the public charge, but it was celebrated with the pomp becoming the birth and greatness of the deceased, and it was not interrupted by any popular demonstrations, such as would undoubtedly have taken place if Scipio had been murdered. It is probable that nobody as yet had any suspicions, even if it should be true, as was afterwards reported, that the body was discoloured in several places; for what could such a fact prove or suggest beyond the natural effect of a mortal disease ? 6 Scipio was followed to the grave by the 5 They were both sons of Æmilius Paullus, and adopted respectively into the families of the Cornelii Scipiones and the Fabii Maximi. 2 Schol. Bob. Cicero, Mil. 7, 2: Super Africani laudibus extat oratio C. Lælii Sapientis, qua usus videtur Q. Fabius Maximus in laudatione mortui Scipionis, in cuius extrema parte hæc verba sunt. Quapropter neque tanta diis immortalibus gratia haberi potest, quanta habenda est, quod is cum illo animo atque ingenio in hac civitate potissimum natus est, neque ita moleste atque ægre ferri, quam ferundum est, cum eo morbo obiit et in eodem tempore periit, quum et vobis et omnibus, qui hanc rem publicam salvam volunt, maximo viro opus est. 3 Plutarch, Rom. 27: οἱ μὲν αὐτομάτως ὄντα φύσει νοσώδη καμεῖν λέγουσι. Velleius Pat. ii. 4: seu fatalem, ut plures, seu conflatam insidiis, ut aliqui prodidere memoriæ, mortem obiit. 5 According to Appian, Bell. Civ. i. 20, it was no dŋμooía rapń. 6 Plutarch, Rom. 27 : καίτοι Σκηπίων ἔκειτο νεκρὸς ἐμφανὴς ἰδεῖν πᾶσι. This account seems intended to contradict another statement, viz., that secrecy was practised at the funeral, and that the body was carried to the place of burial, 'obvoluto capite,' Velleius Pat. ii. 4. CHAP. III. VII. BOOK general esteem not only of his friends, but even of his political opponents,' for all were equally convinced that he was no ordinary party leader, nor was actuated by selfish motives. He was respected as a man of independent judgment and sincere patriotism; nor could it be forgotten that he was the conqueror of Carthage and Numantia, and that Rome had lost in him one of her greatest and noblest citizens. Continued agitation on the sub ject of the agrarian law. Unjust treatment of the allies. The opposition of the Latin landowners to the execution of the agrarian law seems to have been so far successful, that no further attempts were made to apply it to the public lands occupied by them, and that the commission of triumvirs appointed for the redistribution of land was prevented from further action. But the agrarian question was by no means solved or set aside; and the leaders of the democratic party were driven to find a solution in another direction. The idea of abolishing the legal distinction between Roman citizens and their Latin or other Italian allies had, as we have seen, more than once occurred to some of the most enlightened statesmen.2 But the pride and selfishness of the privileged class had always opposed such an act of justice with vehemence and indignation. Neither the sufferings and the danger of the Hannibalian war, when a part of the most faithful Latin colonies wavered in their allegiance, and some of the Italian allies actually revolted, nor the feeling of gratitude for the unswerving fidelity of the others, could shake the obstinacy or move the generosity of the senate or the people. It was considered to be almost an act of treason for any statesman even to moot the question whether the allies, or any portion of them, should be admitted within the pale of citizens. Meanwhile the advantages which the full citizenship conferred grew in importance from year to year. share in the government of the republic became more A 1 Dio. C. fr. 84: οὐκοῦν οὐδὲ τῶν ἀντιστασιαστῶν τις αὐτῷ θανόντι ἐφήσθη, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐκεῖνοι καίπερ βαρύτατον αὐτόν σφισι νομίζοντες εἶναι, ἐπόθησαν. 2 Spurius Carvilius in the course of the second war with Carthage. valuable in proportion as its rule was spreading over more and richer provinces. The disabilities to which the allies had to subunit became more galling, and were felt to be more unjust, when the Roman citizens formed no longer a great majority, and bore no longer the chief weight of the public burdens. No man of foresight and judgment could doubt that sooner or later the artificial distinction made by law among the two classes of full and partial citizens must be swept away. Statesmen like the Gracchi and their friends, who had at heart not only the greatness of the republic but the happiness of the people, could not rest satisfied with schemes for the amelioration of the political and social condition of the Roman artisans and peasants alone. They felt that their work would only be half done, unless they extended the benefits of the reforms to the great mass of the Italian population. Thus their agitation touched the far more comprehensive question of the political status of the allies, a question which involved another more important still, whether the republican constitution itself could be maintained or was doomed to give way to a monarchy. CHAP. III. Question tension of of the ex the Roman franchise The equalisation of the political rights of the whole free population of Italy would, it was easy to see, remove one of the obstacles to the execution of the agrarian law. The landowners among the Latins, if they were made to the Roman citizens, could no longer object to be treated like Italians. the rest; all the reserved rights which they possessed as Latins would naturally lapse if they exchanged their inferior political status for all the privileges of Romans. If thereby they sacrificed certain pecuniary advantages, they on the other hand rose to a level with the Roman aristocracy, and had a chance of sharing the honours and emoluments which the public service offered. The poorer Latins at the same time would share the benefits of the Sempronian laws with respect to assignments of land, the invidious and unjust distinction between two classes of the community being removed, and one law being made common to all. It appears that the excitement among BOOK Consulship of Fulvius Flaccus. the Italians was great when these questions were mooted and a prospect was thus opened for them of acquiring the long-coveted rights. Rome was filled with crowds of people, who, though they were not as yet by law Roman citizens and had no votes to give, exercised nevertheless a certain influence, and helped to form public opinion, which in the end determined the votes in the comitia. The government became uneasy. The tribune, M. Junius Pennus, of 126 B.C., an adherent of the nobility, carried a motion, in spite of the opposition of C. Gracchus, for the expulsion of non-citizens from Rome.' It was an indication that a proposal for the admission of the Italians to the Roman franchise would be met by the combined opposition of the nobility and the people of Rome. Soon after the passing of the rogation of Junius Pennus, C. Gracchus, who had begun his public career as quæstor, was sent to Sardinia with the consul L. Aurelius Orestes, and thus for a time removed from the centre of political life. Meanwhile Papirius Carbo had left the popular party, of which he was one of the most able. leaders, and had joined the nobles with all the zeal of a renegade. Marcus Fulvius Flaccus, the third member of the commission of triumvirs, had been raised to the consulship. Whether the commission was reconstituted by the election of other men we are not informed. We know so little of the party contests of the time, that we cannot tell how it was that a man so stubborn and unmanageable as Fulvius Flaccus was elected consul. Perhaps it was family influence or a momentary reaction in favour of democracy that favoured the election; perhaps the nobles thought that as they had got rid of C. Gracchus by sending him as quæstor to Sardinia, so they could remove Flaccus 1 Cicero, De Off. iii. 11. It is not likely that by this resolution all noncitizens were at once ordered to quit Rome. A measure of this kind would have been too harsh, and glaringly unjust. For the law allowed foreigners to settle, and to carry on business in Rome. The resolution moved by Pennus probably empowered the magistrates to turn out non-residents who appeared in one way or another to endanger public order, or threatened to assume political privileges by taking part in assemblies from which they were legally excluded, 2 The precise time cannot be fixed. from Rome by letting him have a consular command in some distant province. If this was their intention, they succeeded. The senate sent him to Transalpine Gaul to carry on a war with the tribe of Salluvians. Yet before Flaccus started on this expedition he found time to move the great question which the democratic party had at heart-the admission of the Latins to the Roman citizenship. But he was prevailed upon by the senate to drop the matter for the present. Perhaps he foresaw that he would not be able to overcome the opposition to be expected from the nobility and from the great mass of the people. CHAP. III. among the allies on the withdrawal of the pro Flaccus. posal of Nevertheless the proposal of Flaccus had a fatal effect Disturbby causing a partial outbreak of that great conflagration ance which was destined about thirty years later to devastate all Italy. The Latins were all astir at the news that no less a man than one of the consuls had proposed to give them the franchise. Their impatience could be restrained no longer, and when they heard that the proposal had been withdrawn, they were ready to fly to arms. The colony of Fregellæ, on the river Liris, was bold enough to renounce her obedience. Fregellæ might have been called the most loyal of all the Latin colonies. When in the course of the Hannibalian war twelve of them had shown signs of disaffection and had refused to furnish their usual contingents, it was Marcus Sextilius, the chief magistrate of Fregellæ, who headed the deputation of the eighteen faithful colonies to the Roman senate and spoke those memorable words expressive of their 1 Valer. Max. ix. 5, 1: M. Fulvius Flaccus cum perniciosissimas rei publicæ leges introduceret de civitate danda et de provocatione ad populum eorum qui civitatem mutare noluissent, ægre compulsus est ut in curiam veniret. Deinde partim monenti partim oranti senatui, ut incepto desisteret, responsum non dedit. Appian, Bell. Civ. i. 21 : καί τινες εἰσηγοῦντο τοὺς συμμάχους ἅπαντας, οἱ δὴ περὶ τῆς γῆς μάλιστα ἀντέλεγον, εἰς τὴν Ῥωμαίων πολιτείαν ἀναγράψαι, ὡς μείζονι χάριτι περὶ τῆς γῆς οὐ διοισομένους. καὶ ἐδέχοντο ἄσμενοι τοῦθ' οἱ Ἰταλιῶται προτιθέντες τῶν χωρίων τὴν πολιτείαν, συνέπρασσέ τε αὐτοῖς ἐς τοῦτο μάλιστα πάντων Φούλβιος Φλάκκος ὑπατεύων ἅμα καὶ τὴν γῆν διανέμων. ἡ βουλὴ δ' ἐχαλέπαινε, τοὺς ὑπηκόους σφῶν ἰσοπολίτας εἰ ποιήσονται, καὶ τόδε μὲν τὸ ἐγχείρημα οὕτω διελύθη. |