100 B.C.

Despite all the opposition of the senate, they succeeded in effecting their object-partly by craft, partly by violence. The laws of Saturninus, known as the Appuleian, revived the chief objects of Gaius Gracchus. Marius was called upon to conduct the assignations of land which had been promised his soldiers, firstly in Africa, and then in all provincial land, and even in that beyond the Alps, which was still occupied by independent Celtic tribes. As the Italian allies were to receive these assignations together with Roman burgesses, this was practically a first step to placing them on an equality with Romans; and thus not only the extensive schemes of transalpine and transmarine colonization, as sketched by Gaius Gracchus, were revived, but also his project of gradually giving first the Italians and then all Roman subjects the same political privileges. For this work of land distribution it was, doubtless, necessary that Marius should have his consulship annually renewed, and thus practically be king of Rome. The main difference between his case and that of Gracchus was that he occupied a military as well as civil position. Following the example of Gracchus, Marius and his confederates made advances to the equites and the proletariate. They extended the powers of the former as jurymen, and gave them greater control over the extortions of provincial magistrates; while to the latter they now sold grain at the merely nominal price of three cents instead of twentyfour cents a bushel. Still their real power lay in the discharged Marian soldiers, and this fact lent a strong military color to their attempt at a revolution.

In spite of the vehement opposition of the aristocrats by means of tribunician veto, the invocation of portents, and the armed interference of the urban questor Quintus Caepio, the Appuleian laws were ratified. This was partly due to the firmness of Saturninus, and still more to the appearance of the dreaded soldiers of Marius. Quintus Metellus, rather than take the oath which bound every senator to observe the new laws, went into exile, but that was only a gain to his opponents. When, however, the plans came to be executed, it was soon clear that a politically incapable general, and a violent street demagogue could not long be allies. In the first place, Marius, from his utter incapacity as a statesman, was unable either to keep his own party in check or to gain over his opponents. The wealthy classes had no liking for Saturninus and his street riots; nay, the equites had skirmishes with his armed bands, and he was

100 B.C.

only with difficulty elected tribune in 100 B.C. Thus this powerful body began to side with the aristocracy when they saw that Marius was practically the tool of his more violent associates.

But the attitude of Marius not only alienated those who should have been his most powerful supporters, but, what was more important, caused Saturninus and Glaucia to lose all trust in him. His refusal to go the lengths that they went, his negotiations with his own party and the senate at one and the same time, his reservation when he swore as a senator to observe the Appuleian laws, "so far as they were really valid," soon caused a total rupture between. himself and the most violent democrats. But Saturninus and Glaucia had gone too far to recede; they now resolved to grasp the sovereignty for themselves. They arranged that the former should again seek the tribuneship, the latter the consulship, for which he was not legally eligible till two years had elapsed. For the latter office Gaius Memmius was the government candidate; he was suddenly murdered. Hereupon the senate called upon the consul Marius to interfere; he complied, and a hasty levy of young men was drawn up in array, while the senators appeared armed in the Forum, led by Marcus Scaurus. The democrats saw their danger, and set free all the slaves in prison; and on December 10, 100 B.C., a great battle took place in the market-place, the first ever fought within the walls of the capital. It ended in the utter overthrow of the popular party. Saturninus and Glaucia were put to death with many others, so that there perished on one day four Roman magistrates, a pretor, questor, and two tribunes, together with a number of other notable men, in some cases of good family. The victory of the government was complete. Not only were its noisiest opponents dead, but the one man who might have proved really dangerous had publicly and completely effaced himself; and, what was perhaps still more important, the two chief elements of the opposition-the capitalists and the proletariate-emerged from the struggle bitter enemies.

Thus the force of circumstances, and, still more, the incapacity of Marius, had completely destroyed the fabric reared by Gaius Gracchus. Pitiful, indeed, was the position of the great general; he retired to the East so as not to witness the return of his rival Metellus. When he came back to Rome his counsel was not sought, and the continuance of profound peace rendered vain his hopes that the time would come when his strong arm would be needed.

98-93 B.C.

But his superstitious soul ever kept in mind the oracular promise of seven consulships, and, though in the eyes of all insignificant and harmless, he brooded over his schemes of vengeance, and in moody sullenness bided his time. In addition to this, the current of popular feeling now set in strongly against the remnants of the party left behind by Saturninus. The tribunals of the equites condemned with the utmost severity everyone who professed the views of the Populares; nay, they even assailed men on the ground of injuries years old against the aristocrats. Moreover, abroad the Roman arms were everywhere successful. In Spain a serious rising was quelled by the consuls, in the years 98-93 B.C. In the East, too, much greater energy was displayed than had been shown for many years. At home the government was more popular and secure than it had ever been since the restoration. The laws of Saturninus were, of course, canceled, and the transmarine colonies of Marius dwindled down to a small settlement in Corsica.

In 98 B.C. the two consuls passed a law which made an interval of seven days between the introduction and passing of a bill obligatory, and forbade the combination in a single proposal of several enactments differing in their nature. Thus the government was protected from being taken by surprise by new laws, and some restriction was placed on the initiative power in legislation.

It was clear that the Gracchan constitution, which had rested on the union of the multitude and the moneyed aristocracy, was on the eve of perishing, and that the hour had come to reëstablish the governing oligarchy in undisputed possession of political power. All depended on the recovery by the senate of the nomination of jurymen; for of late the governors had administered the provinces, not for the senate, but for the order of capitalists and merchants. The latter fiercely resisted all attempts to wrest their power from them; and even Quintus Mucius Scaevola, one of the most eminent jurists and most noble-minded men of the time, was rewarded for his stern repression of all crime, and for his scrupulous justice in administering the province of Asia, by seeing his legate, Publius Rufus, brought to trial before the equites on the most absurd charge of maladministration. Rufus refused to submit to the moneyed lords, and was condemned and had his property confiscated. He retired to the province which he was accused of plundering, and was there welcomed with every honor by all men, and there spent the rest of his life. Soon after, Marcus Scaurus, seventy years of age,

93-91 B.C.

and for twenty years the chief of the senate, was tried for unjust extortions; and it was evident that neither nobility of descent, blamelessness of life, nor age itself were any screen against the wildest charges preferred by men who made a regular profession of reckless accusation. The very commission touching exactions became the scourge instead of the shield of the provincials; the vilest scoundrel, provided that he satisfied the claims of his fellowrobbers, went unpunished; while those who trusted to their innocence, and attempted to do their duty by the provinces they governed, were found guilty by the juries whom they neglected to bribe.

Marcus Livius Drusus, tribune in 91 B.C., son of the overthrower of Gaius Gracchus, a conservative of the conservatives, the proudest and noblest of the aristocrats, vehemently earnest, pure of life, and an object of respect to the humblest citizen, felt that the time had come to attack the equestrian jury courts. He was aided by Marcus Scaurus and Lucius Crassus, the famous orator; but against him were not only the consul Lucius Philippus and the reckless Quintus Scaepio, but also the more corrupt and cowardly mass of the aristocracy, who, sooner than lose all chance of plunder, were quite content to share the spoils of the provinces with the equites. Drusus proposed to take away the functions of jurymen from the equestrian order, and to restore them to the senate, and to add three hundred new members to the senate, in order to enable it to meet its increased obligations. Moreover, a special criminal commission was to be appointed to try all jurymen who had been or should be guilty of taking bribes. But he also had a wide and well-considered scheme of reform. He proposed to increase the largesses of corn and to cover the increased expense by the permanent issue of copper-plated by the side of the silvered denarii; to reserve all the still undistributed arable land of Italy, and the best part of Sicily, for the settlement of burgess colonists; lastly, he bound himself to give the Italian allies the Roman franchise.

There is a marked similarity of means and aims in the cases of Drusus and Gaius Gracchus; both relied on the proletariate, and both had practically the same measures of reform in view. The great difference was as to who should be the governing power in the state; in all other points the best men of both political parties had much in common, widely different as often were the processes of reasoning by which they arrived at such views.

93-91 B.C.

In order to carry his laws, Drusus wisely kept in the background his proposal touching the Italian franchise, and embodied all his other measures in one law; thus he caused those interested in largesses of corn and distributions of land to also carry the proposal touching the transference of the jury courts. He was stoutly opposed, especially by the consul Philippus, whom he caused to be imprisoned. Though the Livian laws were carried, the consul summoned the senate to reject them. On its refusal, Philippus declared he would seek another state council, and seemed to meditate a coup d'état. Many of the senate now began to waver, and their fears were still further aroused by the sudden death of Lucius Crassus in September, 91 B.C. Gradually the connections of Drusus with the Italians became known, and a furious cry of high treason was raised. The opposition grew more powerful, and the senate at last issued a decree canceling the Livian laws on the ground of informality. Drusus refused to interpose his veto, and thus the senate once more became subject to the yoke of the capitalists.

Shortly after Drusus perished by the hand of an assassin, who escaped undetected; nor was the crime investigated. Thus the same end which swept away the democratic reformers was the fate of the Gracchus of the aristocracy. The weakness of the aristocracy frustrated reform, even when the attempt came from their own ranks.