M. LIVIUS DRUSUS.
The republic was shaken to its very centre, the great point of contest being the administration of justice. Theequiteshad 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, thepublicansin the gospel were the agents of thepublicani. 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 peoplein the provinces, and screened thepublicani, 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, theoptimates, held the great bulk of the landed property; theequites, 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 theequites. 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 manychanges 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 unfavourableturn; 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 theager publicuswas 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 lawfullya 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 thelex 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 theequites, 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 Appianafter 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 thelex 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 singlearbitri; but for political offences, and also for felony, there werequæstiones perpetuæwhich 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 whichquæstioneswere 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 thesequæstiones, 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 transitorymeasure, 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 spreadingwider and wider. At Geneva, there had long been a struggle between thecitoyensandbourgeois,[88]and the latter of these won for themselves the same rights as the former. Then started up the claims of thenatifs, who had been born in Geneva of foreign parents, and had sided with therepresentantsin their quarrel with thenegatifs; and in the revolution of 1789 they were granted the full franchise. But then came also thehabitants, 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 thecrux 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.
The knights opposed the two laws with the utmost fury; notwithstanding which they were carried, as the Italians came in crowds to Rome, ready to take up arms, if need be. As this had therefore been brought about by the most unlawful means, the majority of the senate, with an infatuation which is beyond belief, resolved, when the Italians were gone, that the promise to the allies should not be kept; and on Drusus’ urging it, he met with a refusal. This gave rise to the most deadly hatred between him and the faithless senate, which accounts for Cicero’s words,tribunatus Drusi pro senatus auctoritate susceptus infringi jam debilitarique videbatur.[89]He appeared either in the light of a liar, or a dupe. And even as the knights were displeased with Drusus, so likewise, on the other hand, was the stupid party of the oligarchs then uppermost. They said, “Shall we thenfor ever place on the same footing with ourselves those three hundred knights who are thorns in our side?” Such people are blind to the inevitable necessity of making some concessions: by merely saying “no!” they think that they can keep everything in its old place. Thus there now happened what, from the nature of the human heart must have come to pass: Drusus, who until then had been a zealous partisan of the government, henceforth began an opposition against the senate which was quite at variance with his former ways. The ruling faction in the senate, as well as theequites, wished for the death of Drusus; the consul Philippus was his sworn foe. It was this man who first uttered that terrible saying, that there were not more than two thousand families in Rome which possessed unimpaired property. The unhappy Drusus at once saw himself forsaken. He was a man of a violent temper, and yet he had undertaken that most perilous task of negotiating as a mediator with the Italians; (the Latin colonies were quiet; for as they were sure of being the first enfranchised, they let the others urge their claims, and but few of them had entered into the interests of the Italians.) That curious fragment from the Vatican, which the editor did not understand, and entitled Ὅρκος φιλίππου,[90]gives us the oath which the Italians took. It betokens an association of a very peculiar kind; they bound themselves to obey his orders unconditionally, and to enrol in their districts partisans who would stand by him, as was done thirty years ago in Ireland. Drusus was in such a state, that he could hardly be said any longer to have a will of his own; he was in a perfect fever: had he been fairly supported by those who were in power, he might still have found a way out of his difficulties. But he was already goaded into frenzy; and his behaviour towards Philippus, in which he did things that he ought never to have ventured on, stronglyshows in what a fever he must have been. When on the eve of a great debate, he was now walking up and down with his friends in the lobby of his house,—in these corridors which had no windows, and were lit up with candelabras, the men of rank would move about among a throng of people who were assembled there, and give audience,—he was stabbed in the side by an assassin. The man who did it was never discovered, and it is even uncertain by whom he was hired. He had scarcely been dead a few hours, when all his laws, with the exception of those which related to the courts of justice, were annulled; and in doing this, the senate arrogated to itself a power hitherto unheard of.
Drusus’ death fell out at a most unfortunate moment. The Italians were excited to the highest pitch, and yet there was no one to take their part: public opinion at Rome was against them, as if they were rebels; just as perhaps in England the great body of the people were hostile to the emancipation of the Irish Roman Catholics, or, when the American war broke out, to the North Americans. The party of Drusus, which now showed itself again in the senate, was entirely without a head: Crassus had just died; the two Scævolas, M. Antonius, and the wisest men, knew no longer what to advise, and were intimidated. Instead of allaying the storm, people rashly dared it, the knights charging the senate with treason. The former had at their beck a tribune, Q. Varius,—whose right of citizenship was not even certain, as he was born in Spain of a Spanish mother, though his father was a Roman: this was a brutal man,vastus homo et fœdus, as Cicero calls him, whose impudence served him instead of talent. He moved that a court should be established to discover the traitors who had negotiated with the Italians about their emancipation; and the bill was carried against the strongest opposition of the first men in the senate, the knights joining for this purpose with the rabble, who indeed were most furious. They appeared in the forum in arms when the questionwas put to the vote. There sprang up now a vast number of impeachments; several of the very noblest were convicted of having given traitorous encouragement to the Italians. A very remarkable state of feeling had at this time arisen in Rome: the senate acted the part of democrats; the people, headed by the knights, that of the aristocrats; and whereas the former wished to emancipate the Italians, the latter would not do it.