Plut. Gai. Gracch. and Dionys. Hal. AR. VIII: a new light on the grain dole and the participation of socii in lex agraria sempronia, the issue revisited

• §1 . The Spurius Cassius narrative by Dionysius of Halicarnassus

While investigating the reforms of Gaius Gracchus, one of the most enigmatic reformers of the late republican history, the main challenge is posed by the extreme scarcity and inconsistency of sources. Under these conditions, one has to look for an opportunity to extract information from comparing pieces of information delivered by the literary tradition. Let us turn to the consideration of the text, that can offer some interesting evidence for the topic in question. This is a fragment

from the 8th book of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, dedicated to Spurius Cassius. Let us pay attention to the reformatory plans of Spurius Cassius regading the roman allies.

The story of Spurius Cassius recalls biography of Gaius Gracchus through many details and ideas, according to the ancient rhetorical tradition they are conveyed by means of exposition or direct oratory speeches of participating characters. According to Dionysius, Spurius Cassius, who became consul for the second time, waged a war, and after returning to Rome, with his speeches, acquired the fame of an arrogant person.

They were also displeased at the arrogance of the man, who, after being honoured by the senate, had not shown equal honour to that body, but had produced a treaty drawn up according to his own pleasure and not with the general approval of the senate1.

This treaty drawn up without the general approval of the senate (internation affairs traditionally fell within the jurisdiction of the Senate) is in a perfect symmetry with the Attalus’ legacy about which Tiberius Gracchus deliberated without senatorial consent2. Although Cassius received all honours from the senate, he did not pay back with the equal respect:

For, being the only man at that time who had been honoured by his country with three consul-ships and two triumphs, he now conducted himself in a more pompous manner and conceived a desire for monarchical power3.

The three consulships4 brings up a further analogy with the two tribunates of Gracchus. Also, special attention is drawn to the desire for monarchical power – which was one of the classical reproaches addressed to the brothers Gracchi by the historians of the 1 century BC5.

It should be noted here that the desire for tyranny attributed by ancient authors to the Gracchi, Spurius Cassius (as well as Spurius Melius and Marcus Manlius) is to a large extent a historiographic construct. The latter probably goes back to accusations that sounded in the speeches of the political opponents of Gracchi6). Next, the author reveals the motivation behind the legislative initiatives of Cassius:

bearing in mind that the easiest and safest way of all for those who aim at monarchy or tyranny is to draw the multitude to oneself by sundry gratifications and to accustom them to feed themselves out of the hands of the one who distributes the possessions of the public7.

Up to this point, this description fits almost perfectly with the history of Gaius Gracchus known to us from other sources8. Let us also pay attention to the coincidence of the strategy applied by Spurius Cassius and Gaius Gracchus: largitio (generosity in the form of electoral bribery)9.

An additional argument in favor of the anachronistic character of the legend about Cassius is supplied by the term largitio itself. According to Dionysius, it was the generosity of Spurius that brought him the strongest distrust. At the same time, largitio became a qualifying attribute of illegal ambitus only at the beginning of the 2nd century BC10. That is, the accusation of largitio is largely irrelevant for the early Roman republic11. Further, Dionysius goes on to describe the details of Cassius’ plan. According to him, Spurius Cassius put forward a motion to distribute to the people some vast public land, which had been previously abandoned, but since then occupied by the richest citizens. This is not the only peculiarity of such motion - he proposed to include both Latins and Hernicans in the list of recipients of allotments, who thus were to receive citizenship along with the allotment. With this action, Spurius planned to attract the Latins and allies to his side. The stubbornness in this matter was strongly condemned by the senate:

And bearing in mind that the easiest and safest way of all for those who aim at monarchy or tyranny is to draw the multitude to oneself by sundry gratifications and to accustom them to feed themselves out of the hands of the one who distributes the possessions of the public, he took that course; and at once, without communicating this intention to anyone, he determined to divide among the people a certain large tract of land belonging to the state which had been neglected and was then in the possession of the richest men. Now if he had been content to stop there, the business might perhaps have gone according to his wish; but as it was, by grasping for more, he raised a violent sedition, the outcome of which proved anything but fortunate for him. For he thought fit in assigning the land to include not only the Latins, but also the Hernicans, who had only recently been admitted to citizenship, and thus to attach these nations to himself12.

If we attribute these plans to Spurius Cassius, then it will be almost impossible to fit them into the context of the 5th century BC known to us from other sources13.

Firstly, in that period Rome was a small city-state that owned a relatively small territory. The population of Rome was also small and there were not yet extensive available conquered lands, which could be turned into ager publicus and distributed among the needy people14. Below Dionysius describes legal position of this land in more detail and thus it perfectly fits with the status of ager publicus immediately before Gracchan reforms:

they should show their concern for them by dividing among them the land conquered in war, which, though nominally the property of the state, was in reality possessed by the most shameless patricians, who had occupied it without any legal claim15.

Thus, the story of Dionysius of Halicarnassus about the semi-legendary consul Spurius Cassius contains numerous anachronisms. In our opinion, the author utilized the scenery of the early Republic16 in order to convey the essence of political conflicts of much later times. It might have been a deliberate decision17 of Dionysius dictated by political or literary motives. And, indeed, many details of the stated biography of Spurius Cassius resemble the history of the tribunates of Gaius Grac-chus18. When, in 122 BC, Gaius Gracchus took office for the second time as tribune of the plebs, he proposed a bill that was absolutely unacceptable for the senatorial aristocracy - on granting citizenship rights to the Italian allies of Rome19.

Let us look at a further description of legendary early Roman history by Dionysius. Appius Claudius raised objections to the plans of Cassius:

Appius, upon being asked his opinion first, refused to grant the distribution of land to the people, pointing out that an idle multitude accustomed to devour the public stores would prove troublesome and unprofitable fellow citizens and would never allow any of the common possessions, whether property or money, to continue to be held in com-mon20.

Here senator Appius makes proposals for correcting the bill of Cassius. If our hypothesis about the presentation of Gracchan ideas through the setting of early Republic is true, then the senator's speech reflected a conservative assessment of Gracchus's policy, whose adherents believed that only a reform of the census system or the recruitment system could be allowed, but in no case should the foundations of the polis system be destroyed in the form of unequal treaties with allies. Dionysius, apparently, expressed his own views on the politics of Gaius Gracchus through the speech of Appius. He goes on to explain further details of proposed correction:

After saying this and other things to the same purport, he ended by giving them this advice — to choose ten of the most distinguished senators to go over the public land and fix its bounds, and if they found that any private persons were by fraud or force grazing or tilling any part of it, to take cognizance of this abuse and restore the land to the state. And he further advised that when the land thus delimited by them had been divided into allotments, of whatever number, and marked off by pillars duly inscribed, one part of it should be sold, particularly the part about which there was any dispute with private persons, so that the purchasers might be involved in litigation over it with any who should lay claim to it, and the other part should be let for five years; and that the money coming in from these rents should be used for the payment of the troops and the purchase of the supplies needed for the wars. "For, as things now stand," he said, "the envy of the poor against the rich who have appropriated and continue to occupy the public possessions is justified, and it is not at all to be wondered at if they demand that the public property should be divided among all the citizens rather than held by a few, and those the most shameless21.

Further, Appius Claudius proposes to introduce full and free provision for soldiers.

and that it is better for them, when they set out for the wars, to receive both their provisions and their pay from the public treasury than to pay in their individual contributions each time to the treasury out of their private estates, when, as sometimes happens, their means of livelihood are scanty and will be still further cramped by providing this money22.

How could such radical proposals come from a senator? It is possible to assume that Dionysius was putting political proposals of Gaius Gracchus into the mouth of senator Appius23.

Apparently, Dionysius saw the inevitability and relevance of such a decision in the conditions of the 2nd century BC crisis. Moreover, knowing the results of this crisis during the period of civil wars, he supported such decision. But due to the conservative views that Dionysius of Halicarnassus (expressing the views of Augustan regime) represented, he did not want an anti-senatorial politicians to play the role of a wise savior of the civitas24. Putting ideas into the mouth of Appius was a way of ennobling the idea, and presenting senators ready for hard, but necessary decisions in order to save the state (the public property that Appius protects is regarded as its most solid foundation).

Let us take a closer look on the reform proposed by Appius Claudius. He suggests that illegally occupied land be confiscated to the state treasury in order to be partially leased for a five-year period. The money that will come from renting should be used to supply the soldiers and to pay for those expenses that are necessary for waging wars:

to choose ten of the most distinguished senators to go over the public land and fix its bounds, and if they found that any private persons were by fraud or force grazing or tilling any part of it, to take cognizance of this abuse and restore the land to the state. And he further advised that when the land thus delimited by them had been divided into allotments, of whatever number, and marked off by pillars duly inscribed, one part of it should be sold, particularly the part about which there was any dispute with private persons, so that the purchasers might be involved in litigation over it with any who should lay claim to it, and the other part should be let for five years; and that the money coming in from these rents should be used for the payment of the troops and the purchase of the supplies needed for the wars25.

Then he continues that it is better for the poor when they go to war to receive food and salaries from the public treasury than to pay every time to the treasury from their own property:

and that it is better for them, when they set out for the wars, to receive both their provisions and their pay from the public treasury than to pay in their individual contributions each time to the treasury out of their private estates, when, as sometimes happens, their means of livelihood are scanty and will be still further cramped by providing this money26.

It can be assumed that Gaius Gracchus originally wanted to introduce free provision of soldiers with grain, but when pressed by his political opponents he abandoned this idea, limiting himself to a discounted grain distribution27. This provision was supplemented by his Lex Frumentaria (Corn Law), which also introduced a fixed reduced price for grain distributed in Rome28. The draft law of Appius is surprisingly consistent with the content of the military law of Gaius Gracchus.

To conclude, Dionysius is carrying out an obvious modernization of ancient history – perhaps consciously. For some reasons unknown to us (literary or political), Dionysius chose to present the history of the reforms of Gaius Gracchus in the setting of the Early Republic. This is indicated by the coincidence of the details of the narrative and the main ideas.

Comparing his biographies and evidence from other sources about the same events and people shows that Plutarch was not committed to give an accurate historical account of the actual historical events. Instead, he sought to present a moral portrait of a number of selected heroes of the past in order to be able to compare and identify certain moral patterns30. Thus, Plutarch's main objective consisted in the ethical, and not in the historical perspective31.

Historical events were mentioned by Plutarch only to the extent that their description contributed to the revelation of certain character traits of his heroes on the example of their judgments or behavior32.

In the light of our task, it is especially important to highlight the tendency of Plutarch to ignore well-known facts of biographies that did not fit into the harmonious moral portrait created by him33, as well as inaccuracies caused by the author’s inattention to minor details against the backdrop of the all-consuming task of creating a consistent moral image34.

For the purposes of our study, we compared the parallel biographies of Agis and Cleomenes with that of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchi. To begin with, let's take a look at the sequence of events in these two "parallel biographies" and try to identify a common structure that may underlie them.

• §2 . The structure of parallel biographies (Cleomenes and Gaius Gracchus).

Comparing the biographies of Gaius Gracchus and Cleomenes, we see their consistent parallelism. With such a degree of "fitting" of the two plots (and characters) together, it is not surprising that Plutarch's account is full of inaccuracies. Within the two biographies, the structural elements of the plot can be easily distinguished. The whole narrative and the central moral insight of the biographies are built around these plot elements.

• 1.    Introduction. The influence of the fate of the ideological predecessor on the behavior of the protagonist in the field of reform activities, as well as his character traits, which will subsequently be revealed in full force and will influence his thoughts and actions.

• 2.    First successes of the protagonist while he is still loyal to the established social and state order.

• 3.    Ambition and pride force him to start confrontation with the state by appealing to the people.

• 4.    The first program speeches addressed to the people serve as a means to justify future actions.

• 5.    The first legislative steps in order to implement the plan.

• 6.    Praise of personal qualities of the protagonist by the author.

• 7.    The second significant success of the protagonist, immediately preceding the ill turn of fortune.

• 8.    Opponents begin to press the protagonist. Success and failure alternate for a while.

• 9.    Major defeat and failure of all plans.

• 10.    Temptation of a suicide and withdrawal from the struggle.

• 11.    "Message" addressed to the fatherland.

• 12.    Honoring the protagonist after his death.

This parallelism is especially clear upon closer examination of the reformatory plans of both protagonists. Thus, the close interdependence of the two texts from each other is revealed. According to Plutarch, the fate of Cleomenes and Gaius Gracchus and their main political actions were to a certain extent similar. This allowed the author to draw up a complex construction of a “parallel biography” based on their life stories.

Now let's look at how the identified parallelism and interdependence of the biographies of Gaius Gracchus and Cleomenes serve as additional evidence of the participation of italian allies in the Gracchan colonies and individual viritim land allotments.

In the biography of Agis, we find one curious detail: according to the law proposed to the elders by Agis, it was planned to offer land allotments to perioikoi, that is, non-citizens35. Agis did not succeed in implementing his plan, so it became

Cleomenes’s turn to carry it out. The land was distributed. Cleomenes also gave allotments to each exile, promising to return them as soon as order would be restored. Having thus increased the number of citizens by adding the most worthy of the perioikoi, he created a new detachment of four thousand heavy infantry (Plut. Cleom. 11). This seems to be a neatly drawn parallel with the activities of Gaius Gracchus, who welcomed the allocation of land not only to Roman citizens, but also to Italian allies. It is curious that Plutarch does not mention Italian allies receiving land allotments in the biography of Gaius Gracchus. But what can this "eloquent silence" possibly mean?

If Plutarch saw clear differences in the fates of his heroes, he sought to comment on them in order to use the moral potential of such difference for an instructive "comparison" of heroes in the corresponding section of his parallel biographies. He tended to dwell more heavily on the revealed differences in the biographies of protagonists, rather than on the similarities. But Plutarch leaves the land reform of Cleomenes about the perioikoi without comment. Can it mean that there were no differences in this respect between Gaius Gracchus and Cleomenes? In other words, could he recognized a certain similarity between them by omitting any comments?

Plutarch sympathized with Cleomenes more. That is why, perhaps, he left without comment the Italian participation in the land reform by Gaius Gracchus, in order to silence this positive element in the latter's biography. And, indeed, upon careful examination of the biographies of all four heroes of these parallel biographies (Tiberius and Gaius Gracchi, Agis and Cleomenes), it becomes clear that Gaius Gracchus in the presentation of the author was the least worthy of all four.

It is especially striking that even the positive features of Gaius Gracchus in the description of Plutarch look like shortcomings against the background of the actions of Agis and Cleomenes. Consistently insisting on the negative side of Gaius Gracchus, Plutarch could become forced by his own paradigma to omit important details that did not fit into his scheme, and to exaggerate minor details that helped to create the desired image of the reformer within the author's attitude36.

The following detail is also noteworthy: in the "comparison" section, Plutarch does not say anything about offering land to perioikoi and conscripting them in the army, although this was probably the most daring and disruptive of all Cleome-nes's actions, not counting the ephorate abolition. We believe this silence is quite logical in the light of one of the “moral laws” that Plutarch formulates on the example of Cleomenes and Agis: in reforms, it is important to rely on authoritative examples of antiquity. The allocation of land to perioikoi, obviously, could not have any legitimate precedents in the history of Sparta.

The question of whether Gaius Gracchus agrarian commission distributed land to the allies, as Cleomenes did, of course, still remains open. But it can be concluded, that one of the following two statements might be probable: Plutarch might have known from his sources that Gaius Gracchus had acted in the same way as Cleomenes, i.e., offered land to non-citizens. He included this legislative decision into the biography of Cleomenes because there was a clear parallelism with Gaius Gracchus. But he omitted it in the biography of Gaius Gracchus because he did not approve of his actions. A sharp witted reader of parallel biographies would get a hint to think so, and Plutarch might have deliberately counted on this effect.

Second possibility is that, according to Plutarch, reformatory plans of Gaius Gracchus should have included such measure, although he did not have exact information on this matter. He still put this reform in the biography of Cleomenes. While mentioning land plots in the colonies of Gaius Gracchus, he did not specify whether they were given to citizens only or also to non-citizens37. In such case, the absence of a specification speaks volumes. Plutarch did not want to focus on this measure, because he tended to emphasize the limited scope of Gaius Gracchus’ actions and a particular narrowness of his political thinking, in contrast to Cleomenes.

Thus, we have acquired an indirect evidence, based on an analysis of the literary tradition, that Gaius Gracchus (according to Plutarch) might have designated land allotments in his colonies not only for citizens, but also for non-citizens. Although this evidence cannot serve as a direct proof of the hypothesis under discussion, indirectly it indicates that Gaius Gracchus allowed and perhaps even encouraged the participation of Italics in his land reform.

We have demonstrated, by comparing the structure of both biographies, how carefully they are built according to the same scheme. Was it an artificial fitting of two dissimilar stories? We believe not. Plutarch had a variety of sources and was well acquainted with different versions of events. His bographies show that he carefully studied all available sources, including speeches and historical accounts about his protagonists and carefully chose correct pairs.

After a thorough analysis of biographies of many distinguished personalities, he accumulated rich material. From the list of these historical characters, he could combine almost perfect pairs, discarding unnecessary or inconsistent details in order to leave perfect symmetry in biographies and eloquent difference in moral values.

Based on the analysis of a number of accounts by Dionysius and Plutarch, we described an indirect evidence, hinting on the participation of Italian allies in the land reform of Gaius Gracchus. This conclusion argues against the prevailing thesis in historiography about the anti-Italic orientation of the agrarian law of Gaius Gracchus.