Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T19:01:41.436Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Supporters and Opponents of Tiberius Gracchus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

John Briscoe
John Briscoe
Affiliation:
University of Manchester
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Although a considerable amount of work has been devoted to the identification of the supporters and opponents of Tiberius Gracchus, the central feature of the prosopographical picture that emerges has not been given the attention it deserves. For Tiberius Gracchus, whose mother was both the sister of the adoptive father of Scipio Aemilianus and the niece of Scipio's natural father, and whose sister was married to Aemilianus, found his most notable noble supporters among those who were political opponents of Aemilianus. In the context of Roman politics as they operated in the pre-Gracchan era, that is a very remarkable situation, and one that merits further investigation. For if it is the case that Tiberius Gracchus broke away from his inherited connections to join the political opponents of those connections, it is worth asking what consequences and repercussions this action had. We might expect to find persons who could be put into the following categories: (a) other former supporters of Aemilianus, who joined Gracchus in his break-away, (b) friends of Aemilianus who remained loyal to him, (c) opponents of Aemilianus who would not accept the Gracchan programme, and (d) opponents of Aemilianus who supported Gracchus. What follows is an attempt to define the membership of the various categories. I restrict myself to this process of identification: I am not here concerned with the larger question of the extent to which the motives of those who supported Gracchus were purely factional and how far they genuinely backed the Gracchan programme. On these, and many other matters, one will naturally turn now to Badian's exhaustive survey in the first volume of Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 64 , November 1974 , pp. 125 - 135
Copyright
Copyright © John Briscoe 1974. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 On the prosopography of the period cf. Münzer, F., Römische Adelsparteien und Adelsfamilien (Stuttgart 1920), 225 ff.Google Scholar; Bilz, K., Die Politik des P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus (Stuttgart, 1935)Google Scholar; Scullard, H. H., JRS 1 (1960), 59 ff.Google Scholar; Earl, D. C., Athenaeum N.S. xxxviii (1960), 283 ff.Google Scholar; Latomus xix (1960), 657 ff.Google Scholar; Tiberius Gracchus, a Study in Politics (Brussels, 1963)Google Scholar, with the review by Brunt, P. A., Gnomon xxxvii (1965), 189–92Google Scholar; Astin, A. E., Scipio Aemilianus (Oxford, 1967)Google Scholar—hereinafter referred to as Astin—especially ch. viii; Strasburger, H., Hermes xciv (1966), 60 ff.Google Scholar; Gruen, E. S., Athenaeum N.S. xliii (1965), 321 ff.Google Scholar; Roman Politics and the Criminal Courts, 149–78 B.C. (Cambridge, Mass., 1968)Google Scholar, chs. i and ii.

2 Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, ed. Temporini, H., i. 1 (Berlin-New York, 1972), 668–731.Google Scholar

3 Tiberius Gracchus 69 ff.

4 Evidence for the treaty in MRR i, 484; for Gracchus' part in it, MRR i, 485.

5 Cf. my comments in Latomus xxvii (1968), 156Google Scholar; xxxi (1972), 37, and in general my forthcoming article in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. For the politics of the 170's cf. JRS liv (1964), 73–7Google Scholar; Latomus xxvii (1968), 149–56Google Scholar.

6 Astin, 86, 89.

7 Earl, Tiberius Gracchus 67 ff.; Astin, 319–21.

8 For the career of Claudius cf. Münzer, , RE iii, 2848–9Google Scholar. The bitterest clash between Scipio and Claudius came in the censorial elections in 142 (Plut., Paull. 38; praec. rei ger. 14; Astin, 111–3). For Claudius' support of Gracchus cf. Cic., de r.p. i, 31 (below, p. 127); Plut., , TG 9, 1.Google Scholar

9 Fraccaro, P., Studi sull' età dei Gracchi (Città di Castello, 1914), 42, n. 4Google Scholar; Münzer, Römische Adelsparteien 268 ff.; Astin, l.c. (n. 7). The early date is accepted by Gruen, Roman Politics and the Criminal Courts 42.

10 ORF 3, fr. 47 (pp. 190–1).

11 Val. Max. ix, 7, 2.

12 For sources on Gaius' quaestorship cf. MRR, i, 508.

13 Both Tiberius and Gaius served when only 15: for Tiberius at Carthage in 147 cf. Plut., , TG 4, 5Google Scholar; for Gaius in 138, Plut., , CG 2, 9Google Scholar; for their dates of birth Plut., , CG 1, 2Google Scholar; TG 3, 2. Normally service began at 17 (Gell. x, 28; why Brunt, P. A., Italian Manpower 225 B.C.–A.D. 14 [Oxford, 1971], 399Google Scholar, n. 3 says 19 I do not understand) and Gaius Gracchus, ironically, made this a legal minimum (Plut., , CG 5, 1)Google Scholar.

14 Earl, Tiberius Gracchus 68, though his arguments that this must be the case are not compelling. He argues that the only known child of Gaius Gracchus was a daughter. But that depends on Münzer's very implausible identification of the Sempronia of Sallust, Cat. 25 with a daughter of Gaius Gracchus (Münzer, , Römische Adelsparteien 272–3: contra cf. Syme, Sallust [Berkeley and Los Angeles-London, 1964], 134, n. 54Google Scholar; Astin, 320).

15 fr. 7P (Aulus Gellius, ii, 13, 1 ff.); Astin, 321.

16 Cf. Köhm, J., Altlateinische Forschungen (Leipzig, 1905), 117–8Google Scholar. For later examples cf. Stegmann, R. Kühner-C., Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache (3rd edition, Leverkusen, 1955), i, 87Google Scholar; Ogilvie, R. M., Commentary on Livy, 1–5 (Oxford, 1965), 479Google Scholar; Goodyear, F. R. D., The Annals of Tacitus, i (Cambridge, 1972), 289Google Scholar. For the reference to Köhm, and for discussion of the Asellio passage in general, I am grateful to my colleague Dr. J. N. Adams.

17 Astin's statement that ‘if there was more than one daughter the marriage preceded the affair of the foedus Mancinum’ is quite gratuitous. There is not a shred of evidence for more than one daughter.

18 For the attraction of an appositional phrase into the relative clause cf. Kühner-Stegmann, ii, 313; Hofmann-Szantyr, , Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik (Munich, 1965), 564Google Scholar. On the indeclinable virile secus cf. my Commentary on Livy, Books xxxi–xxxiii (Oxford, 1973), 151.Google Scholar

19 The plurals in Plutarch, , TG 13, 6Google Scholar and Dio fr. 83, 8, if based on any evidence at all, may well result from a misunderstanding of Asellio (probably by their source rather than by Plutarch and Dio themselves, since it seems unlikely that Plutarch had any direct knowledge of Asellio: cf. Peter, , HRR i2, CCXLVGoogle Scholar). It is just possible (as a member of the editorial committee of this Journal has suggested to me) that Gracchus, knowing that his wife was again pregnant, was also referring (implicitly at least) to the as yet unborn child. For another possible case of such a usage cf. Miller, N. P. on Tacitus, Annals i, 42, 1.Google Scholar

20 Cf. n. 8.

21 Cic., har. resp. 43; Brut. 103; Vell. Pat. ii, 2, 1; Dio fr. 83, 2; Oros. v, 8, 3. The version of Quintilian vii, 4, 13 and Florus ii, 2, 2 that Gracchus turned to popular legislation out of fear of a prosecution arising from the foedus Mancinum is rather different.

22 Plut., , TG 8, 9Google Scholar. I am not convinced by the arguments of Harris, W. V., Rome in Etruria and Umbria (Oxford, 1971), 203–6Google Scholar, that the latifundia were in fact on ager publicus. It seems to me far more likely that Gracchus saw latifundia on Etruscan ager privatus.

23 For the view of Scipio as popularis cf. Cic., Ac. pr. ii, 13, 72; Scullard, , JRS 1 (1960), 65Google Scholar; Astin, 30. The principal example is Scipio's persuading the tribune M. Antius Briso to desist from his opposition to the Lex Cassia Tabellaria of 137. Badian, Aufstieg und Niedergang 698 ff., interprets Scipio's move as merely following the convention that a tribunician veto should not be pressed against the wishes of the people. Although I think that Badian is right to point out that it was Octavius, not Gracchus, who was breaking convention in 133, I am not convinced by his argument that Scipio was not backing Cassius' bill. Cicero, , de legg. iii, 37Google Scholar describes him as its auctor, and says that Scipio received the culpa for its passage. It should be emphasized that Scipio's popularis reputation is no more than a veneer. On important social issues he was manifestly reactionary. In the case of the ballot law, the important change of principle had been made by the Lex Gabinia of 139, which introduced secret voting into elections. Its extension to indicia populi was a logical move.

24 Plut., , TG 8, 3–4Google Scholar. The fact that Gaius Gracchus served under Scipio at Numantia (Plut., , TG 13, 1Google Scholar) cannot be used as an indication that no serious breach had occurred between Scipio and Tiberius.

25 cf. in particular Strasburger, o.c. (n. 1). Examples of persons wrongly implied to be consistently friends of Scipio are Galus, C. Sulpicius (cf. Historia xviii [1969] 65–6)Google Scholar and Q. Mucius Scaevola, the augur (cf. p. 129 below. On Rutilius Rufus cf. below, p. 133. populum unum does not mean that Cicero was denying the existence of political divisions before the tribunate of Gracchus. The phrase must be taken with the statement in the previous sentence that in 129 in una re publica duo senatus et duo paene iam populi sint.

26 On their careers cf. Münzer, , RE iii, 1213–6Google Scholar (Metellus); xvi, 425–8 (Scaevola).

27 Cic., de am. 77: cf. Astin, 85, 312–5, arguing against Münzer's view (Römische Adelsparteien 252) that Metellus was formerly an opponent, and later a friend of Scipio.

28 For the evidence cf. Astin, 244, n. 2.

29 Brutus 81.

30 On Fannius and his history cf. p. 131 below.

31 TG 14, 4.

32 Anyone with political experience will readily agree that it is possible to disagree with one's political friends on an individual point—even attack them violently in public—while still remaining in fundamental agreement with their aims.

33 Tubulus, : Cic., fin. ii, 54Google Scholar; iv, 77. Mancinus, : Dig. xlix, 15Google Scholar, 4; 1, 7, 18. For Gracchus and Nasica see below nn. 38, 40. I refrain from arguing from the fact that Scaevola is the natural brother of the indubitably Gracchan supporter P. Licinius Crassus Mucianus (see below), since those who argue that Scaevola was not a committed supporter of Gracchus would deny that the relationship was relevant.

34 Athenaeum l.c. (n. 1); Roman Politics and the Criminal Courts 52, 59.

35 Earl, 49–66.

36 Athenaeum N.S. xlviii (1970), 152–3Google Scholar. For a similar position cf. Grosso, G., Archivio Giuridico clxxv (1968), 204–11Google Scholar, also discussing Scaevola's judgement in the matter of the claims of Licinia after the death of Gaius Gracchus (Dig. xxiv, 3, 66).

37 CPh lxvii (1972), 42–6Google Scholar. Cf. Brunt, , Gnomon xxxvii (1965), 191.Google Scholar

38 Cic., ac.pr. ii, 13; Plut., , TG 9, 1Google Scholar. The fact that Scaevola's support was obscurius (Cic. l.c.) fits well with his behaviour after the murder of Gracchus.

39 cf.n. 33.

40 De domo 91; pro Plancio 88.

41 Astin, 228.

42 Cic., de or. ii, 285; Badian, Aufstieg und Niedergang 726, n. 170 rightly argues that the case was a sponsio, not a criminal prosecution, as claimed by Gruen, Athenaeum, art cit., 328; Roman Politics and the Criminal Courts 63, 305.

43 It is possible, as Wiseman suggests (op. cit., n. 36), that the s.cc. referred to in the de domo were passed on the relatio of Scaevola, and that Cicero chose to interpret this as indicating that Scaevola was the author of the sentiment s expressed in the s.cc.

44 Evidence in Astin, 230, n. 2.

45 For Scipio's famous iure caesum videri cf. Astin, 264–5. videri reflects the standard formula for giving judicial verdicts, and is not meant to tone down a firm statement approving Nasica's action, as claimed by Astin, , CQ N.s. X (1960), 136Google Scholar (implicitly withdrawn in Scipio Aemilianus 234).

46 For his career cf. Münzer, , RE xvi, 430–6Google Scholar. Gruen, Roman Politics and the Criminal Courts 112–4 argues against the view that Scaevola supported the Gracchi.

47 Date of birth, Münzer, , RE xvi, 430Google Scholar; marriage, ibid., 431.

48 i, 38.

49 De r.p. i, 18, 33. Those present are described by Cicero (i, 14) as Scipio's familiarissimi.

50 cf. n. 25.

51 De am. 37.

52 cf. Münzer, , RE xvi, 448Google Scholar (Mucius no. 26). It would be unwise to deduce anything one way or the other from Scaevola's remark to Septumuleius of Anagnia in 121 (de or. ii, 269).

53 It should be noted that when the marriage took place Crassus was still in his popularis phase (for the date of the marriage cf. Münzer, , RE xvi, 448Google Scholar [Mucius no. 27]).

54 For his career cf. Münzer, , RE xiii, 334–8.Google Scholar

55 Münzer, Römische Adelsparteien 273–4.

56 Evidence in MRR i, 470. Crassus' proposals were finally enacted by the Lex Domitia of 104.

57 Cic., de or. i, 139; Brutus 98, 127. On Galba cf. Astin, 90; he was probably dead by 133.

58 Münzer, , RE xiii, 496–7Google Scholar (Licinius no. 180).

59 Cic., ac. pr. ii, 13.

60 Evidence in MRR i, 495.

61 For his career cf. Münzer, , RE vi, 1987–91Google Scholar. For the fragments of his histories Peter, , HRR i2, 139–41.Google Scholar

62 He served at Carthage (Plut., , TG 4, 5Google Scholar), owed his tribunate to Aemilianus (Cic., Brut. 100), and then served under the adoptive brother of Scipio's own brother, Q. Fabius Maximus Servilianus (App., Ib. 67). On the latter's allegiance cf. Gruen, Roman Politics and the Criminal Courts 19; Astin, 315–6. Contra: Münzer, Römische Adelsparteien 245 ff., Bilz, op. cit. (n.1), 59–60; Scullard, , JRS 1 (1960), 67Google Scholar; Badian, , Historia vi (1957), 321Google Scholar = Studies in Greek and Roman History (Oxford, 1964), 36 ff.Google Scholar

63 Plut., CG 8.

64 fr. 1 of his histories is clearly a defence of his political volte-face in 122. Might his poor relations with Laelius (Cic., Brut. 101) be more the result of Fannius' support of Gracchus than of Laelius' refusal to prefer him to Scaevola at the filling of a vacancy in the augural college?

65 For his career cf. Münzer, , RE iii, 1742.Google Scholar

66 cf. n. 23.

67 Evidence in MRR i, 537.

68 For his career cf. Gelzer, , RE xxii, 105.Google Scholar

69 So called, as the son of Cato's first wife Licinia, to distinguish him from M. Porcius Cato Salonianus, whose mother was Cato's second wife Salonia. Cf. Gelzer, , RE xxii, 167–8.Google Scholar

70 Cic., de am. 39, cf. Astin, 86–7.

71 Plut., , TG 11, 2.Google Scholar

72 cf. Astin, 348; Gruen, Roman Politics and the Criminal Courts 52–3.

73 Plut., , TG 18, 1.Google Scholar

74 On him cf. Münzer, , RE vii, 341–3.Google Scholar

75 See n. 42.

76 cf. Astin, 92.

77 On the earlier periods cf. JRS liv (1964), 73–7Google Scholar; Latomus xxvii (1968), 149–56Google Scholar; xxxi (1972), 22–53; Historia xviii (1969), 49–70Google Scholar. Cf. also my forthcoming article in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt.

76 Astin, 192. Cf. Badian, , JRS lii (1962), 56Google Scholar = Studies in Greek and Roman History 223.

79 Evidence in MRR i, 430.

80 cf. MRR i, 502.

81 Astin, 192, n. 3, cf. 232.

82 cf. Badian, , Studies in Greek and Roman History 47–8, 55, 94Google Scholar = Historia vi (1957), 333, 340Google Scholar; PACA i (1958) 14.Google Scholar

83 Cic., Phil. xi, 18; Astin, 234

84 On Laelius cf. Münzer, , RE xii, 404–10.Google Scholar

85 For evidence cf. Astin, 230, n. 2.

86 Cic., de am. 73, cf. 69, 101. Dio, fr. 83, 8 says that Gracchus was working for the election of Ap. Claudius Pulcher to the consulship for 132. It is not clear whether the law forbidding iteration of the consulship had been repealed in 135, or merely waived pro hac vice. In the latter case Claudius would have needed a special dispensation to stand, which he is unlikely to have obtained, and so may not have been a candidate at the actual election. Rupilius' daughter married a Q. Fabius, possibly the son of Q. Fabius Maximus Servilianus: cf. Münzer, , RE iA, 1230Google Scholar and n. 62 above.

87 His prominence is such that in this case it is rather unlikely that Cicero attributed friendship with Scipio to him without definite evidence. Cf. n. 25; Strasburger, , Hermes xciv (1966), 62, n. 7.Google Scholar

88 Evidence in MRR i, 486.

89 For his career cf. Klebs, , RE i, 535–7Google Scholar.

90 For the father cf. Klebs, , RE i, 535Google Scholar.

91 De am. 37.

92 Astin, 198–9.

93 Brutus 117.

94 Mommsen, , Staatsrecht ii,3600Google Scholar and Strasburger, , RE viiA, 519Google Scholar accept the possibility, but it is their only case of a iiivir capitalis acting in this field. The iiiviri did have certain functions in civil cases (Plautus, Persa 72; Cic., Or. 156; Varro, , LL ix, 85Google Scholar; Festus, s.v. sacramentum; cf. la Rosa, F., Labeo iii [1957], 231–45Google Scholar; W. Kunkel, Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung des römischen Kriminalverfahrens in vorsullanischer Zeit [Abh. Bay. Ak. N.F. 56, 1962], 71) but it is improbable that this extended to deciding who was or was not to be a iudex. The emendation is accepted by Wilkins in the OCT and, apparently, by Douglas, Commentary on Cicero's Brutus 96.

95 cf. p. 130.

96 On the assumption that he is not the Μάλλιος of Plutarch, , TG 11, 2Google Scholar (cf. n. 72). On Manilius cf. Astin, 83; on the Servilii, cf. n. 62.

97 Astin, 96.

98 De vir. ill. 59, 4; Dig. 1, 7, 18. The second praetorship is not recorded in MRR.

99 cf.n. 56.

100 cf. Astin, 91.

101 Since we now know that the trial of L. Aurelius Cotta, the consul of 144, took place in 138 (Livy, Ox. ep. lv) and not after 132, as is implied by Cicero, pro Murena 58, there is no means of knowing whether he was still alive in 133. Cf. Gruen, Roman Politics and the Criminal Courts 37, n. 66.

102 Lepidus' prosecution by Cassius Longinus in 125 gives us no clue to his attitude towards Gracchus. If Badian were to be right in his interpretation of Scipio's attitude to the Lex Cassia (cf. n. 23) there would, as far as I can see, be no evidence for regarding Lepidus as anti-Scipionic at all.

103 For his career cf. Münzer, , RE iii, 1392Google Scholar, for the fragments of his histories HRR i2, 120–38. See also Latte, SB Berl. Ak. 1960, 7. On his political position cf. Astin, 316–9.

104 Athenaeum N.S. xxxviii (1960), 283 ff.Google Scholar

105 cf. Latomus, xxvii (1968), 155–6Google Scholar. I am thus withdrawing my acceptance of Earl's conclusion indicated in JRS liv (1964), 74, n. 80.Google Scholar

106 Evidence for the Lex Calpurnia in MRR i, 459. For significant evidence from his histories see frs. 24, 27, 38. Cf. Astin, 318.

107 Astin, 319. For the consul of 148 and Scipio, Astin, 91–2.

108 For his career cf. Volkmann, , RE xxii, 63–4.Google Scholar

109 Lucilius 621M; Astin, 93, n. 3.

110 On Pompeius cf. Miltner, , RE xxi, 2056–8Google Scholar. See also Gruen, Roman Politics and the Criminal Courts 34 ff.

111 cf. Astin, 85.

112 Cic., pro Fonteio 23; Val. Max. viii, 5, 1.

113 Dio fr. 82, cf. Val. Max. iii, 7, 5.

114 Plut., TG 14; Oros. v, 8, 4.

115 cf. Astin, 198–9.

116 Oros. l.c.

117 cf. Latomus xxxi (1972), 43–4Google Scholar, n. 6, on the censorship of 199.

118 Livy, per. lviii; Plut., TG 14. For his identity cf. Badian, Aufstieg und Niedergang 715.

119 On his career cf. Münzer, , RE iA, 1269–80Google Scholar

120 Hermes xciv (1966), 66 ff.Google Scholar

121 Galba: Cic., Brut. 85–8; for Galba and Scipio cf. Astin, 90. Scaevola: Cic., de off. ii, 47; Dig. i, 2, 2, 40.

122 Numantia, , MRR i, 491Google Scholar; for opposition to Gracchus, cf. Strasburger, op. cit. 67; Jacoby, , FGH IIC, 210.Google Scholar

123 For his career cf. Münzer, , RE iv, 1501–4.Google Scholar

124 Thus Münzer, Römische Adelsparteien 258. Cf. Astin, 88 (with reservations).

125 For evidence cf. Astin, 314, n. 2.

126 Münzer, RA 252. His calculation is based on a minimum age of 39 for the praetorship. For argument s in favour of this assumption cf. Astin, , The Lex Annalis before Sulla (Brussels, 1958), 31 ff.Google Scholar = Latomus xvii (1958), 49 ff.Google Scholar

127 Astin, 313.

128 One thinks of the marriage of M. Licinius Crassus, son of the triumvir, and Caecilia Metella, daughter of Pompey's enemy, Metellus Creticus. This was contracted at the time when Crassus and Pompey were opponents, but survived the formation of the first triumvirate. Cf. Syme, Roman Revolution 22, n. 1.

129 Astin, 88.

130 On this cf. Lehmann, G. A., Beiträge zur alten Geschichte und deren Nachleben, i (Berlin, 1969), 387 ff.Google Scholar

131 De am. 101.

132 cf. Münzer, , RE xii, 404Google Scholar; though even then it is not true that Nasica was a senex when Laelius was an adulescens.

133 Evidence in MRR i, 442.

134 cf. Astin, , Latomus xv (1956), 159 ff.Google Scholar; Scipio Aemilianus 280–1.

135 cf. Historia xviii (1969), 68Google Scholar.

136 See Latomus xxxi (1972), 22–53Google Scholar; JRS liv (1964), 73–7Google Scholar; and in general my forthcoming article in Aufstieg und Niedergang.