Niebuhr's lectures on Roman history, Vol. 2 (of 3)Niebuhr, Barthold Georg
History
Niebuhr's lectures on Roman history, Vol. 2 (of 3)
Niebuhr, Barthold Georg
Rome -- History
On the side of Gracchus were many of the most eminent men, who
certainly were owners of large estates as well as the Scipios, but who
gave up their private advantage for the common good. There was even
his father-in-law Appius Claudius, who in other respects was just as
proud as any of his forefathers, but who in this behaved as Appius
Claudius Cæcus had done in his most glorious moments; moreover, there
was the great P. Mucius Scævola who was then consul; there was also
the father-in-law of his brother, P. Licinius Crassus, and others.
The rage which broke out against Tib. Gracchus in the senate, is
difficult to describe; it went beyond all the bounds of decency. Men of
rank, when they are the champions of oligarchy, as soon as ever their
interests are touched, not only display the same greedy covetousness
as the worst bred, but likewise a fury which one could hardly have
believed. Hitherto no one had lost sight of what was due to Gracchus
and his family: he enjoyed the same respect among the Romans, as
among barbarians; every one acknowledged his virtue, and even those
who looked upon all virtue as folly, were forced to own that he was
afflicted with that folly. But now the heroes of triumphs, and the
first men of the state, railed against him as a mutinous fellow who was
actuated by the most detestable motives. P. Cornelius Nasica, he who
was grandson of him who in the war with Hannibal had been declared to
be the most virtuous of men; and son of Scipio Nasica, who was likewise
said to have been an example to the whole nation, and who had tried
hard to bring back the good ways of the olden time; a man who himself
also was deemed to be the very soul of honour, and perhaps deserved
to be so in many respects--became hand and glove with the infamous Q.
Pompeius. From this it does not follow that he was a knave; it may be
that, hardened in his oligarchical notions, he really saw Ti. Gracchus
as he fancied him to be. The senate did not possess the same means
which the patricians once had against the plebeians: it had not the
old negative of the curies, the Hortensian law having conceded to the
tribes the most unbounded power of legislation, so that the senate
could not step in with a senatus consultum. By the strangest anomaly,
the tribunes could now only check each other, since there was no veto
where it would have been most needed: the only means of defeating a law
was the intercession of a tribune.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account