The Religious Tradition of the Gracchi*

ARG 7. Band, 198-214

Federico SANTANGELO University College London

The tribunates of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus have long been regarded s a cen- tral moment in the history of the Roman Republic, without, however, their religious context always being given the weight that it deserves. Attention has obviously been attracted by legislative, economic, or social aspects, but the motivations and the choices of both partes which clashed in the decade between 133 and 121 may be better explained by reconsidering the evidence for the religious framework in which poh'tical competition was embedded. It is of course generally agreed that the political developments of the Republic cannot be properly discussed without consideration of the role played by religion: priesthoods were an essential part of the institutional framework, and competition for these offices was a major feature of the political agenda. Moreover, a conspicu- ous role in political debate was played by the traditions of the families of the nobil- ity, which deserves attention even if family connections and alliances are no longer considered the most prominent factor in Roman politics. A reconsideration of the literary sources for the family memory and religious interests of tlie Sempronii Gracchi may therefore provide the basis for a new approach to the political dynam- ics of the period. Besides being a leading politician, Gaius Gracchus was an important figure in the literary scene of his times. Many sources attest his oratorical talent, and a collection of his speeches circulated until the beginning of late antiquity.1 Moreover, he was the author of at least one historical work, which provided some biographical information on the best known members of his family. Only two fragtnents survive, not necessarily belonging to the same text: one refers to the account he gave of the passage of his brother, Tiberius Gracchus, through the Etrurian countryside on his way to Numantia, a story related by Plutarch in his biography (8.9), and one to the prodigy of the two snakes found in the house of Tiberius Gracchus the Eider, which is mentioned in several texts, each of which differs from the others in a number of details.2 Both these episodes refer to the family tradition of Gracchi, a topic to which I will return below. The nature of this cannot be established with certainty,

* I am most grateful to Michael Crawford, John North, and Kevin Sargeant for cominents and criticism at various stages of this research. 1 See e.g. Cic. Brut. 125; id. Har. resp. 41; Vell. 2.6.1; Tac. DiaL 18.2; Plut. Tib. Gr. 2.3; there is a f ll account of the ancient judgments on Gracchus' eloquence in P. Fraccaro, 'Studi sull'eta. dei Gracchi, I. Oratori ed orazioni dell'eta graccana', Studi storid per l'antichita classica 5 (1912), 317-448, and 6 (1913) 42-136, at 66-71. 2 ΗΜ21Λ19. F. Santangelo, The Religious Tradition of the Gracchi 199 nor it is the purpose of this paper to try to do so. I will ratlier focus on the single episode of die snakes, and on the broader religious and political meaning of the prodigy and of the account provided by Gaius Gracchus. The earliest author to refer to tlie anecdote is Cicero, who mentions the story in two passages of the De diumatione^ written between 45 and 44 B.C.3 In the first book, Quintus, tlie brother of the orator, praises divination by citing an impressive series of examples, among which tlie anecdote of the snakes takes an important place (1.36): TL Gracchus, P. ßlius, qui bis consul et censorfuit idemque et summus augur et vir sapiens ciuisque praestans, nonne, ut C. Gracchus fdius eius scriptum reliquit-y duobus anguibus domi comprehensis haruspices conuocauit? qui cu/n re- spondissent, si marern emisisset, uxori breui tempore esse moriendum, si femi- narn, ipsi, aequius esse censuit se maturatn oppetere mortem quam P. Africani filiam adulescentem: feminam emisit, ipse paucis post diebus est mortuus.

"Tiberius Gracchus, who was consul and censor twice, a very competent augur, a wise man and a preeminent citizen, did not he call the haruspices, having caught two snakes in his home, äs his son Gaius Gracchus wrote? As they replied that, if he let tlie male snake go, his wife was to die in a short time and if he released the female snake his death must soon occur, he thought it was more fitting that death, coming at the right moment, should overtake him rather than the young daughter of Publius Africanus; he released the female snake, and died within a few days" (transl. by W. A. Falconer, modified). The source in which Cicero found this narrative was certainly a literary one (scriptum reliquit). a text personally written by Gaius Gracchus.4 Any doubt which could arise in the modern reader about the genre chosen by Gracchus is removed by a second reference to the anecdote (2.62): C. Gracchus ad M. Pomponium scripsit duobus anguibus domi comprehensis haruspices a patre conuocatos. Qui magis anguibus quam lacertis, quam muribus? Quia sunt haec cotidiana, angues non item; quasi vero referat, quod fieri potest, quam id saepe fiat. Ego tarnen miror, si emissio feminae anguis mortem adfere- bat TL Graccho, emissio autem maris anguis erat mortifera Corneliae, cur alte- ram utram emiserit; nihil enun scribit respondisse haruspices, si neuter anguis emissus esset quid essetfuturum. At mors insecuta Gracchutn est. Causa quidem, credOy aliqua morbi grauioris, non emissione serpentis; neque enim tanta est in- felicitas haruspicum, ut ne casu quidem umquamfiat, quod futurum illi esse di- xerint.

""Gaius Gracchus wrott to Marcus Pomponius that the haruspices were consulted by his father after he had captured two snakes in his house, Why then snakes, rather than lizards, or mice? Because the latter ones are pari of daily life, while snakes are

3 See S. 1nimpanaro (ed.). Cicerone. Detla dwinazione (Milan, 1988), LXV1-LXXIV. * The passage is coimnented upon by A. S. Pease (ed.), M. Tnlli Ciceronis de divinationc über prirrius (Urbana, 1920), 155-7. with a rieh bibHography on the di&cussion of ihe anecdote in the Quellenforschung of the early twentielk Century. 200 Archiv für Religionsgeschichte, 7. Band, 2005 not; äs if it mattered how often something happens, if it can happen at all. How- ever, I am surprised by this: if the release of the female snake was to be deadly to Tiberius Gracchus, and that of the male was to be the same for Cornelia, why did he release one of them? Actually, he does not write that the haruspices said any- thing about what would have happened if he had released neither snake. But death overtook Gracchus. Because of a more serious illness, I believe, not for the liberation of a snake; the bad luck of the haruspices is not so great that their predictions, even by accident, never come true" (transl. by W. A. Falconer, modified). The text in which Gracchus told the story - which bears a clear resemblance to the myth of Admetus and AIcestis (Apollod. Bibl. 1.9.15) - was therefore not a Speech, but a literary work dedicated to a certain Marcus Pomponius: most probably, the same Marcus Pomponius who is mentioned by several sources among the most loyal partisans of Gracchus and who died in a vain effort to defend his last attempt to escape his enemies.5 It cannot be ascertained whether the work addressed to Pomponius was an Open letter', or a biographical account introduced by a dedicatory preface.6 A. Momigliano viewed it äs one of the first Roman examples of an important genre of Hellenistic historiography, the hypomnema, a biographical work written by an important political figure on his family and himself.' In the light of later works like Catulus' commentary on the Cimbric War, Rutilius Rufus' autobiography, or Sulla's Memoirs, it does not seem unlikely that Gracchus may have written a narrative of his deeds; nonetheless, there is no evidence that he included it in the work addressed to Pqmponius, or indeed elsewhere. Cicero refutes Quintus' thesis by a direct use of the evidence that he had brought in its support. The response of the haruspices was ridiculous, and a striking detail proves it: they did not say what would have happened if both snakes had been liberated. Cicero does not doubt that the episode actualiy took place: his aim is not to discredit the story per se. What he focuses on is the credulity of those who were involved in it and, more than tihis, the absurd response of the haruspices. Valerius Maximus reports the episode at the beginning of the chapter of his an- thology dedicated to amor coniugalis (4.6.1): Tiberius Gracchus, anguibus domi suae märe acfemina apprehensis, certiorfac- tus ab aruspice märe dimisso uxori eius, femina ipsi celerem obiturn instare, sa- lutarem coniugi potius quam sibi partern augurii secutus, rnarem necari, feminam dimitti iussit sustinuitque in conspectu suo se ipsum interitu serpentis occidi. Itaque Corneliam nescio utrum feliciorem dixerirn quod taletn virurn ha- buerity an miseriorem quod amiserit

When a male and a female snake were captured in his house, Tiberius Gracchus, after having been informed by an haruspex that if the male were let go, his wife, and if the female, he himself would shortly die, following the part of the prediction which made in favour of his wife rather than himself, ordered the male to be killed

5 Val. Max. 4.7.2; Vell. 2.6.6; de vir. HL 65.5; Plut. C. Gr. 16.6,17.1. The passages by Cicero and Plutarch are also edited in P. Cugusi (ed.), Epistolographi Latini minores, 1.1 (Turin, 1970), 108-9; see, for a Brief commentary, ibid., 1.2 (Turin, 1970), 64. A. Momigliano, The Development of Greek Biography (Cambridge, Mass., 19932), 93. F. Santangelo, The Religious Tradition of the Gracchi 201 aiid the female let go, tlms bearing to be slaughtered in his own sight by the killing of the snake. So I know not whether to call Cornelia more happy in having such a husband or more unforttmate in losing him (transl. by D. R. Shackleton Bailey, modified). There is no fundamental difference from Cicero's account: Cicero, whose reference to die episode was cursory, had not spoken of the killing of the snakes, but only of the liberation of one of them. Valerius' specifying that one snake had to be küled "(marern necari, feminam dimitti iussit)" made explicit a detail which was seif- evident to Gracchus and to his readers. Moreover, he pathetically represents Tiberius Gracchus witnessing the killing of the male, which comes, in some way, an anticipation of his own death. This discrepancy may be explained by the use of a different source: Valerius did not use Gracchus - whom he does not mention - nor Cicero - tliough he knew his work very well — but a third author, who probably had a direct knowledge of Gracchus' account. Among his sources, he once quotes a certain Pomponius Rufus, the author of a Collectomm liber, a chrestomathy of anecdotes which is not otherwise known to us. From this lost work derives the well-known anecdote of Cornelia defining her children äs 'her jewels"' (4A^praefatio): Maxima omamenta esse matronis liberos apud Pomponium Rufum Collectorum li- bro <...> sie inueninius. Cornelia Gracchorum mater cum Campana matrona apud iüa/n hospita omamenta sua pulcherrima illius saeculi ostenderet, traxit eam sermone dum e schola redirent liberi et: 'Haec, inquit, omamenta sunt mea.'

That children are a matron's best jewellery we find äs follows in Pomponius Rufus, Book * of his 'Miscellanies': Cornelia, mother of the Gracchi, when a Campanian matron who was guest in her house showed her jewellery, the finest in existence at that period. kept her in talk until her children came home from school, and then said. 'These are my jewels'. (transl. by D. R. Shackleton Bailey, modified). Pomponius was also the nomen of the addressee of Gracchus' work, and a relationship between liim and this mysterious moralist is possible. After having evoked the pietas of his father, Gracchus may well have devoted a part of his memoirs to his motlier, stressing her morality, her devotion to her husband's Manes, and her commitment to the education of tbeir children. The jewels anecdote, which probably had a Greek antecedent,3 may have been read by Pomponius Rufus in the work dedicated to his relative Marcus Pomponius: it might even be possible "to rank it among the extant fragments" of Gracchus' historical work. Independently, other eleraents of Cornelia's portrait äs an exemplary wife - above all, her refusal of a

* The anecdote is attached by Plutarch to the mother of Phocion arid also to an anonymous Spartan woman: &eevlylut. Phoc. 19.3; id. Mor. 241 D9. Gaius Gracchus' Hellenistic education may well have included a good mastery of the anecdotal tradition: see the mention of Demades (F 66 De Falco) in ORF* 44 =; Gell. 11.10. On the possihle relationship between Gracchus and Rufus, see L. Burkbardt and l. von Ungern-Steraberg, 'Gorneiia, Mutter der Gracchen*, in M. H. Dettenliofer (ed.). Reine Männersache?' Frauen in Männerdomänen der antiken Welt (Cologne- Weimar-Vienna, 1994), 108. 202 Archiv für Religionsgeschichte, 7. Band, 2005 wedding proposal by Ptolemy VIII, persuasively argued for by L. M. Günther9 - could also descend from the ideal portrait which was painted by her son. Some works of the Gracchi could still be read in the first decades of the Empire: Pliny the Eider declares that he saw some of their autographs in the library of his friend Poinponius Secundus (13.83), Tiberi Gaique Gracchorum manus apud Pomponium Secundum vatem ciuemque clarissimurn vidi annos fere post ducentos; iam vero Ciceronis ac DiuiAugusti Vergilique saepenumero vidernus ("at the house of the poet and most distinguished citizen Pomponius Secundus I have seen docu- raents in the hand of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus written nearly two hundreds years ago; while äs for autographs of Cicero, of the Divus Augustus, and of Vergil, we see them constantly", transl. by H. Rackham, modified).10 The owner of these texts was a meinber of the same gens to which the addressee of the Gracchan memoirs belonged, and it is likely that this rare text was in the library of such a brilliant citizen of imperial Rome, who shared with his friend Pliny a deep literary interest.11 Pliny may have known the work of Gaius Gracchus, and gives an account of the snakes prodigy in the seventh book of the Naturalis Historia, which, while it still coheres to the framework of Cicero and Valerius Maximus, contains a new element (7.122): Gracchorum pater anguibus prehensis in domo, cum responderetur ipsum Oictu- rum alterius sexus interempto: 'Immo vero, inquit, meum necate, Cornelia enim iuuenis est etparere adhuc potest'. Hoc erat uxoriparcere et reipublicae consulere; idque mox consecutum est.

"The father of the Gracchi, when two snakes were captured in his house, having received äs answer that he would suryive if the snake of the otlier sex were killed, said: 'Let's kill mine, äs Cornelia is still young and can still have children'. It meant to spare his wife and to think of the fatherland; and the prophecy soon followed." In his study of the chronology of Cornelia's marriage, Carcopino noticed that the reference to die fertility of Cornelia in direct speech, an element missing elsewhere

9 L. M. Günther, 'Cornelia und Ptolemaios VIII. Zur Historizität des Heiratsantrages (Plut. TG l, 3)', Historia 39 (1990), 124-8; contra, W. Huss, 'Die römisch-ptolemaischen Beziehungen in der Zeit von 180 bis 116 v. Chr.', Roma e l'Egitto neWantichitä classica. Atti del I Congresso Internazionale Italo-Egiziano (Rome, 1992), 197-208, at 205-6. The value of Cornelia's choice to remain uniuira is soundly discussed by H. Parker, 'Loyal Slaves and Loyal Wives. The Crisis of the Outsider-Within and Roman exemplum Literature', in S. Murnagham and S. R. Joshel (eds.), Women and Slaves in Greco-Roman Culture: Differential Equations (London-New York, 1998),· 152-73, at 169. According to TLL 8.357.15, manus, in this relatively rare meaning, has the general sense of scriptum, libellus. L. Gamberale, 'Autografi virgiliani e niovimento arcaizzante', in Atti del convegno virgiliano sul bimillenario delle Georgiche (Naples, 1977), 359-67, at 360-1 believes that Pomponius owned original manuscripts of the Gracchi; contra, S. Timpanaro, Per la storia della filologia virgiliana antica (Rome, 1986), 41, followed by O. Pecere, meccanismi della tradizione testuale', in G. Cavallo, P. Fedeli, A. Giardina (eds.), Lo spazio letterario di Roma antica 2,3 (Rome, 1993), 297-386, at 337, rightly more sceptical on this point, and on Pomponius' ability to distinguish an ancient manuscript from a forgery. 11 See R. Hanslik, 'Pomponius', AE21.2, 2356-60. F. Santangelo, The Religious Tradition of the Gracchi 203 in the tradition, probably derived from the work of Gaius Gracchus.12 Gaius was the last clüld of the couple, born in 154 BC; Carcopino dated the death of his father at die beginning of the saine year. According to this hypothesis - whiclx can neitlier be proved, nor excluded, decisively by any argument - Gracchus.the Eider would unconsciously have allowed, by his sacrifice, tlie birtli of his last son. Pliny empha- sises this aspect with a short remark, saying tliat his choice was uxoriparcere et rei publicae consulere; also Cicero defined the death of the censor äs rnatura, which means here, äs Timpanaro pointed out, ccoining at the right moment'.13 Even if one does not agree with every aspect of Carcopino's chronological reconstruction,14 a literary relationsliip between the death of Gracchus the Eider and the birth of Gaius does not seem improbable, and could have represented a very attractive element of Gracchan propaganda. In different ways, dien, Cicero, Valerius Maximus and Pliny the Eider direcdy mirror the version of the prodigy given by the lost h^omnema: Cicero chose to be vaguer, while Valerius and Pliny, who wrote almost two centuries after Gracchus, made soine features of the tale more explicit. The other two ancient sources dealing with die story offer a slightly different account, one which could, nonetheless, derive from Gracchus himself. The anecdote is told at the end of the short biography of Tiberius Gracchus the Eider which is included in the De viris illustribus. The death of the former censor is explicitly at- tributed to die prodigy (65.5): Et cum in domo Tiberii duos angues e geniali toro repsissent, responso dato eum de dominis periturum cuius sexus anguis fuisset occi- sus, amore Corneliae coniugis rnarem iussit interfici ("And when two snakes slith- ered out of the nuptial bed in the house of Tiberius, a response was given that ei- ther spouse would die in accordance to die gender of the snake that would be killed. so he ordered to slay die male on account of his love for Cornelia59). The authorship and the exact chroiiology of the De viris illustribus have been debated for a long tüne, and are still uncertain. The orthodox view dates it to the fourth Century A.D., and considers it äs a scholastic, biographically-focussed epitome of Roman history from the Monarchy until the Late Republic, ahnost com- pletely independent from Livy. possibly derived from a biographical collection written in the Augustan Age.1i> However, the alternative hypothesis attributing it to

12 J. Carcopino, Autour des Gracques. fcüides critiques^ (Paris, 19672), 78-80 (the first edition appeared in 1928). 13 See Timpanaro (n. 3), 261. M See Carcopino (n. 12), 47-83: it is difficult to agree, for instance, with the firm acceptance of the notice of Ptolemy VIIFs proposal of marriage. Cf. id., Sylla ou la Monarchie manquee (Paris, 1947), 98-9. lj See, among the most recent contril)utions, M. M. Sage, The De viris illustribus: Authorship and Date% Hermes 108 (1980), 83-100; for the Augustan source, J. Fugnianu, Königszeit und Frühe Republik in der Schrift "De viris illustribus urbis Rontae". Quellenkritisch-historische Untersuchungen. l: KönigzeU (Frankfurt-ßern-New York-Paris, 1990), 11, 39-43; id., Königszeil und frühe Republik in der Schrift "De viris illustribus urbus Roniae". Quellen kritisch-historische Untersuchungen. //, 1: Frühe Republik (6./5. Jh.) (Prajikfun-Beni-New York-Paris, 1997), 208- 10: id., fciiannü)al als vir iiiustris. Zur HannibaJ-Biographie in der Schrift De riris Uluslribus urbis fiomae\MfI57 (2000), 141-50, at 141-2. 204 Archiv f r Religionsgeschichte, 7. Band, 2005

Pliny the Eider also appears to deserve some credit.16 It can be argued that the De viris illustribus was a preparatory work: before undertaking such a long scholarly conunitment s the Naturalis Historia, Pliny may have tried to create an epitome of his historical knowledge, mainly based on the literary model of the Augustan elo- gia, and actually not immune from the influence of the Livian tradition. Even without taking a stand on this difficult issue, it can be acknowledged that the sentence about Gracchus' death in the De viris illustribus does not contradict what is said in the passage of the Naturalis Historia. It just focuses on different details, mentioning the bed and alluding to a movement of the snakes - possibly, just two rhetorical embellishments, which do not alter the facts in any case - but making no reference to the fertility of Cornelia. The nuptial bed is mentioned also in a well-known passage of Plutarch's biography of Tiberius, which raises more complex problems. Plutarch relates the story at the very beginning of Tiberius' biography, with the clear intention, s E. Valgiglio stated,17 to represent the Gracchi s a family relentiessly being chased, threatened and punished by Fate. The biographer does not declare his source (Tib. Gr. 1.4): λέγεταé δε ποτβ συλλαβείν αυτόν επί τη? κλίνης ίευγο? δρακόντων, τους δε μάντεις σκεψαμένου? το τέρας, αμφù μεν ουê εάν άνελειν ούδ άφεΐναι, περί δ' έκατέροõ διαιρεΐν, ώ? ό μεν αρρην τù Τι,βερίù φέροé θάνατον á- ναιρεθείς, ή δε θήλειá τη Κορνηλία. τον ουν Τιβέριον, êáΐ φιλοϋντá την ãéτ ναΐκα, êáé μάλλον αύτù προσήκειν δντé πρεσβυτέρα) τελευταν ήγούμενον έτé νέα? ούσης εκείνης, τον μεν άρρενá κτεΐναé των δρακόντων, άφεϊναé δε την θήλειαν è', ύστερον οõ πολλù χρόνù τελευτησαι, δεκαδύο παΐδας εê της Κορνηλίας αύτù γεγονότας καταλιπόντα.

Moreover, they say that he orice captured a pair of snakes on his bed, and that the soothsayers, having considered the prodigy, forbade hiin to kill both snakes or to let them go, but told him to decide on the fate of one of thein, declaring that the "male one, if killed, would bring death to Tiberius, and the female one to Cornelia. Tiberius, who loved his wife and believed it was more suitable for him to die, s he was older, while she was still young, killed the male snake, and released the female; not much time later, he died, leaving twelve children which Cornelia had borne to him" (transl. by B. Perrin, modified). The mention of the nuptial bed is not a rnajor divergence from Cicero and the rest of the tradition. But Plutarch Stresses that the priests had forbidden that both snakes should be released, where s Cicero had wittily contested the response of the priests narrated by Gracchus, which, according to his version of tlie st r)7, did not contain that explicit interdiction. Plutarch certainly knew the De dwinatione when. he wrote the Vita ofthe Gracchi (C. Gr. 1.7). The different version he gives may be due, s suggested a long time ago by G. Riecken,18 to an autonomous integration of the available source(s), dictated to Plutarch by common sense and, at the same time, by the intention to overcome Cicero's criticism. K. K ves-Zulauf devoted an

L. Braccesi, Introduzione al De viris illustribus (Bologna, 1973). See the review by P. Jal,

17 E. Valgiglio (ed.), Vita dei Gracchi (Rome, 1963), 27. G. Riecken, Die Quellen zur Geschichte des Tiberius Gracchus (Leipzig, 1911), 15. F. Santangelo, The Religious Tradition of the Gracchi 205 important part of bis Reden und Schweigen to the role played by binary alterna- tives in Roman divination, and particularly in the formulation of haruspical responses.1 Cicero, who had realised perfectly how this feature contributed to divination's appeal, skilfidly criticised it, while Plutarch, who just needed to remind bis Greek readers how divination worked, had to inake explicit an interdiction which was obvious to any Roman. Did Plutarch use the work of Gaius Gracchus in its original version? In another passage of the Life of Tiberius Gracchus (8.9), Plutarch quotes a notice deriving from a 'book of Gaius Gracchus': ¼ δ αδελφός αυτού Γάιο? εν TIVL βιβλίù γέγραφεν, ει? Νομαντίαν πορευό- μενον διá τη? Τυρρηνία? τον Τιβέριον êáΐ την έρημίαν τη? χώρα? όρώντá êáé του? γεωργουντα? ή νέμοντα? οικέτα? έπεισάκτου? êáé βαρβάρου?, τότε πρώτον επί νουν βαλέσθαé την μυρίων κακών αρξασαν αυτοί? πολιτείαν.

"His brother Gaius wrote in a book that, \vhile Tiberius was travelling to Numantia tlirough Etruria, seeing the desolation of the countryside and that those who culti- vated or pastured on it were imported barbarian slaves, he then first conceived the public policy which was the cause of countless evils to the two brothers" (transl. by B. Perrin, modified). The reference is very vague: apparendy, Plutarch had not read the book (which need not necessarily be identified with the work addressed to Marcus Pomponius),20 but found a reference to it in one of the later sources he used in bis historical reconstruction. Nonetheless, taking the point of view of Gaius Gracchus is rather important at this stage of bis narrative: Plutarch is dealing with the different theses that previous historians had adduced to explain why Tiberius Gracchus began fighting for agrarian reform. After having quoted several unfavourable judgements which he had read in a number of unspecified historians (that is, that he had been incited by bis preceptors and by bis mother, that he was ixnmoderately ambitious, and that he envied bis friend Spurius Postumius), Plutarch considers two different, and more noble, motives: the one reported by Gaius Gracchus, who is likely to have followed Tiberius in bis journey, and another. which might also derive from the same source, s the two final sentences of the chapter are not explicitly separated from each other (Tib. Gr. 8.10): Την δε πλείστην αυτό? ό δήμο? δρμήν êáé φιλοτιμίαν έξήψε, προκαλούμενο? διá γραμμάτων αυτόν εν στοαΐ? êáé τοίχοι? êáΐ μνήμασé καταγραφομένων, άναλαβειν τοΐ? πένησι. την δημοσίαν χωράν.

~rJTie people most of all gave liim energ)7 and arnbition, inciting him with inscrip- tions written on porticoes, walls and monurnents to recover the public land for the poor"y (transl. B. Perrin. modified). It can be argued that this sentence also comes frorn the Gracchari bookand that ii could be cousidered a part of the sarne fragment included in Peter's edition.

1V T. K ves-Zulauf, Reden und Schweigen. R mische Religion bei Plinius Ma'wr 1972). 207-314 (see specifica y on ihe Gracchus episodc, 270-8). * Contra, H. Peter, HR/f l.CLXXJK. 206 Archiv f r Religionsgeschichte, 7. Band, 2005

Moreover, it would be consistent with Gaius Gracchus' effort to construct a tradition depicting the Gracchi s the patrons and the friends of the people. Assuming that Gracchus' work played a significant role in the Plutarchean rep- resentation does not necessarily imply that the biographer ever knew and used it directly. On the other band, Plutarch appears to know the lost biography of Gaius Gracchus (or of the two Gracchi) written by Cornelius Nepos (Tib. Gr. 21.3), and some passages of bis narrative, especially in the final chapters, bear a resemblance to the accounts of the authors of the so-called Livian tradition. It would be point- less to look for a Hauptquelle of the whole biography; it may only be observed that Nepos and Livy are both likely to have known and used Gracchus' hypomnema and tliat they reported the Statements of their sources by adopting a technique which seems very similar to Plutarch's. Livy tended to use generic formulas like plures tradidere auctores, quidam auctores sunt, fama obtinuit·?1 Nepos, whose survey of the sources was no doubt less careful, used slighdy less vague locutions.22 Plutarch also resorted very generously to the equivalents of such expressions: λέγουσι, λέγε- ται, l πλείστοé λέγουσιν, ένιοé δε... άλλοé δε, ùς δε ένιοί φάσιν. Significandy. λέγεταé is also used to refer to the anecdote of the snakes, which Plutarch, having read Cicero, knew derived from Gracchus, but which he could have read elsewhere too. hi fact, we do not know if the anecdote of the snakes was part of the same text in which Gracchus dealt with his brother's journey. An apology for bis brother may well have been included in a general work about the history of the whole family, including Information about Gracchus the Eider and Cornelia, but no evidence proves it.

It is now time to come back to the pr digy of the snakes. Its itinerary through the ancient tradition has been traced; its general meaning shoidd now be considered. Cicero uses the tale s a tool for his polemic against divination: the response of the haruspices, based on the 'unexpressed axiom'23 implying tlie absence of a third alternative besides the killing of one snake and the liberation of the other one (which later authors need to make explicit), seems to him a perfect example of tlie trivial irrationality of divination. By attacking this fundamental aspect of the code used by the haruspices, Cicero vigorously assaults their doctrine s a whole. However sympathetic one might be with the Kulturkampf of this part of the De diuinatione?* one cannot overlook how significant the role of the haruspices in the

As noted by G. E. Underhill in the introduction to his still interesting edition of the Life of the Gracchi (Oxford, 1892), XV. See Them. 9: scioplerosque ita scripsisse ... sed egopotissimum credo Thucydidi, oiAlc. 11: H ne [Alcibiades] infamatum aplerisque tres grauissimi historici summis laudibus extulerunt. * K ves-Zulauf (n. 19), 275. Cicero often stated the political importance of religion s a cohesive factor for tlie whole Community: P. A. Brunt, The Fall ofthe Roman Republic (Oxford, 1988), 58-60. Moreover, the De diuinatione has too complex a structure to be considered s a univocal manifeste of Cicero's views in religious matters: see, in general, M. Beard, 'Cicero and Divination: the Formation of a Latin Discourse', JRS 76 (1986), 33-46 and M. Schofield, 'Cicero for and against Divination', ibid., 47-63. F. Santangelo, The Religious Tradition of the Gracchi 207

Roman world was. Their responses were often a major political issue: Cicero personally experienced it when he had to deliver an entire oration, tlie De haruspicurn responsiS) in 56 B.C., to oppose an Interpretation of a respoiise which Clodius had proposed with the sole intention of attacking him persoiially.25 .The incidence of divination in public affairs goes back to an earlier period than the first Century B.C. Haruspical doctrine canie from Etruria, but it was relatively soon integrated into Roman religious life. After the stabilization of the relations between Rome and the Etruscan world, the haruspices began establishing an organised presence in the city. A fundamental distinction was very soon drawn between public and private prodigies: the seiiate, äs well äs the families of the nobilitas, began Consulting the haruspices with increasing frequency.26 Cicero attests (Div. 1.92) that, some time before 45-44 B.C., apud maiores nostros, turn cumflorebat Imperium (cchi the days of our forefathers, when its power was füll in vigour", transl. by W. A. Falconer), the Senate had decreed that die youngest members of six (or ten: the text is contro- versial)2 noble Etruscan families were to be trained in the art of divination. In that period, the discipline of the haruspices continued to be viewed äs something for- eign. which owed its fascinating power also to its distance from the Roman world;28 it is unlikely tliat the formal constitution of a College of haruspices goes back to that phase. The most likely date of the senatorial decree seems to be an unknown year in the middle of the second Century B.C.,29 which is also the period in which the death of Tiberius Gracchus the Eider occurred. A gradual strategy of integration is also proved by the presence of haruspices on the staff which govemors took with them to their provinces,30 and by the earlier evidence of their direct participation in important military campaigns. Livy attests tliat the haruspices, like the augurs, regularly joined the Roman army in the second Punic war: it was a good way for the Roman oligarchy to obtain the solidarity of the Etruscan elites during that difficult phase.31 The earliest episode is particularly interesting in the present discussion, äs it directly involves an ancestor of the Grac-

25 See, e.g., M. Beard, J. North, S. Price, Religions of Hörne l (Cambridge, 1998), 137-8. ~* See B. MacBain, Prodigy and Expiaüon: a Study in Religion and Politics in Republican Rome (Brüssels. 1982), 42-9. Val. Max. 1.1.1 speaks of decem principumßlü. 26 See E. Rawson, IntellectualLife in theLate Roman Republic (London, 1985), 303-6. " See MacBain (n. 26), 49; Beard-North-Price (n. 25), 101-2. Contra, M. Torelli, Eiogia Tarquiniensia (Florence, 1975), 120-2, affirming that a permanent College of haruspices was established by the senate in an 'ancient time', probably over-interpreting a well-known passage of De tegibus (2.21): Prodigia portenta ad Etruscos haruspices, si senafus iussit, deferunto, Etruriaque principes disapÜnam doceto. Quibus dkiis creuerint, procuranlo, idemque fuigura atque obstita pianto ("Prodigies and portents shall, if the Senate so decrees, be referred to £truscan hanißpices, and Etruria shall instruct her leading men in that art. They shall eacrifice in expiation to whaiever gods they think fit, and they shall also raake atonement in response to ilashes of lightning and to the striking of certain places", transl. by N. Rutld, modified). According to Quintus, who is once again Cicero's interlocutor, this precept, wlüch is listed among many others, Ls 'not very different from the laws of Numa, nor from our traditions' (2.23: non multum discrepat i&ta constitutio retigionum a legibits Numae nostrisque tnoribus. M Beard-Nonh-Price (n. 25), 320, 330-31. 31 MacBain (n. 26), 50-8. The prodigy is told also by Valerius Majurnus l .6.8. 208 Archiv für Religionsgeschichte, 7. Band, 2005 chi, Tiberius Scmpronius. It belongs to 212, while Gracchus was proconsul (25.16.1-4):32 Graccho, priusquam ex Lucanis maueret, sacrificanti triste prodigium factum est. Ad exta sacrificio perpetrato angues duo ex occulto adlapsi adedere iocur conspectique repente ex oculis abierunt. Et curn haruspicum monitu sacrificium instauraretur atque intentius exta reseruarentur, iterum ac tertium tradunt liba- to[que] iocinere intactos angues abisse. Cum haruspices ad imperatorem id per- tinere prodigiurn praemonuissent et ab occultis cauendum hominibus consultis- que, nulla tarnen prouidentia fatum imrninens moueri potuit.

"As Gracchus was sacrificing before leaving Lucania, an unfavourable portent occurred. After the slaying of the victim, two snakes, gliding stealthily up to the entrails ate part of the liver, and on being noticed vanished suddenly from sight. \Vhen for that reason the sacrifice was repeated, on the advice of the soothsayers, and while the entrails were kept with greater care, they relate that the snakes for the second and the third time tasted the liver and went away unharmed. Although the haruspices had warned in advance that that portent applied to the general, and that he must beware of men in hiding and of covert plans, still the imperiding fate could not be averted by any foresight" (transl. by F. G. Moore, modified). Another member of the family, probably the uncle of Tiberius Gracchus the Eider, died after an ominous appearance of a couple of snakes, and an explicit prophecy of his death had been formulated by the haruspices.33 The analogies with the death of the censor are striking, though not complete. Incidentally, it may be noted that a parallel - though independent - presence of snakes äs an ominous animal was linked to the matemal branch of the family: the birth of Scipio Afri- canus, the father of Cornelia, was announced by the sudden appearance of a snake in the bed of his mother: the haruspices were convoked and predicted the imminent pregnancy of the woman.34 In this light, the prodigy of Tiberius' and Cornelia's snakes acquires a further meaning and deserves to be considered äs part of a more complex family tradition, which seems to be virtually unparalleled. The first Tiberius Gracchus suddenly sees the snakes when he is presiding over a sacrifice, and the haruspices do not hesitate to see the event äs a premonition of disaster. Their response conformed to a tradition which is not unknown elsewhere. Plautus' Amphitruo (1107-8) and Terence's Phormio (707) inform us that the appearance of a snake coming down from the roof of a house was counted äs a Symptom of imminent evil,30 although this tradition was far from being univocal: the few cases attested by the literary sources im-

32 According to Livy (27.16.5), at Tarentum, in 209 B.C., Fabius Maximus consulted both the augurs and the haruspices, who both dissuaded him from undertaking a sudden attack: it is clear that the haruspices followed the Roman army; the year after, the death of the consul Claudius Marcellus was announced by an unfavourable sacrifice, which left the haruspices 'unsatisfied' (27.26.13-4). 33 See the ÄEarticles by F. Münzer/Sempronius5, nos. 51 and 53, 2a2, 1401-4. 3* Livy 26.19.6-7; Gell 6,1.1-5. A list is provided in L. M. Hartmann, 'Schlange. Mythologie und Kult', RE 2a, 508-20, at 517-9. F, Santangelo, The Religious Tradition of the Gracchi 209 ply tliat the appearance of a single snake was considered äs the sign of divine be- nevolence and good luck.36 Beside the Scipio Africanus anecdote, the most famous and striking one involves Sulla: the sudden appearance of a snake during a sacrifice was interpreted by the haruspex Gaius Postumius äs a sign of divine favour and, inunediately after that prodigy, the general launched his successful attack on Nola.37 According to Pliny's narrative, Gracchus chooses to die because his wife is younger and can still procreate: actually, äs suggested above, the prospect of fur- tlier births seems the first motive of Gracchus' choice. If the final part of Car- copino's thesis - Cornelia was already pregnant with Gaius Gracchus, though no- one yet knew it - is tenable, an anecdote which, ostensibly, deals with death would become at the saine time the anticipation of a birth. Nothing proves that Gracchus included tlie prodigy of the first Gracchus (not to speak of that of Scipio) in the work addressed to Pomponius. However, his Roman readers may well have noticed an impressive continuity with a complex religious background even without an explicit reference. As this use of family memories shows, Gaius Gracchus made a substantial contribution to the persistence of the images of his closest relatives in Roman historical culture. His immediate purposes are only partially detectable, but it is clear that they originally bore some relation to broader political problems. The first major aspect of this strategy was the relationship between the two brothers: äs F. Frazier remarked.38 Plutarch represents them äs two complementary figures, sharing the same ideals and the same destiny. He may have had a strong literary arid moralistic interest in doing that, but the sources, apparently, gave him good grounds anyway. In his book, Gaius justified Tiberius9 attempts at refonn, perhaps deforming, in the process, the agrarian and demographic Situation of Etruria in his time.39 Gaius

36 C. 0. Thulin, Die Etruskische Disciplin 3 (Gothenburg, 1909), 105; id., 'Haruspices', RE 7, 2431—68. at 2465 (largely a resume of the former). Pliny attests that snakes were usually kept in private houses, like pets, after the introduction to Rome of the cult of Aesculapius, in 292 B.C. (29.72: anguis Aesculapius Epidau.ro Romam advectus est, volgoque pascilur et in dornibus, ac nisi incendiis semina exurerentur, non esset fecunditati eorum resistere in orbe terrarum ["The Aesculapian snake was brought to Rome from Epidaurus, and a snake is cominonly kept äs a pet in our homes; so that were not their eggs destroyed in ftres there would be an incurable plague of them", transi. by W. H. S. Jones]). r Cic. Div. 1.72 (the episode was told by Sulla in his Memoirs and Cicero had also personally witnessed it in 89 B.C.); Val. Max. 1.6.4. 38 F. Frazier, Histoire et morcde dans les Vies paralleles de Plutarque (Paris, 1996), 146. A similar approach is chosen by H. G. Ingenkamp, 'Plutarchs 'Leben der Gracchen'. Eine Analyse', in 2,33.6 (Berlin-New York, 1992), 4298-336 and T. Späth, 'Deux figures, une vie: les Gracques de Plutarque', in A, Perez-Jimenez, F. Casadesus Bordoy (eds.), Estudios sobre Plutarco: mUticismo y religiones mustericas en la obra de Plularco (Madrid-Malaga, 2001), 411- 40. ** See tlie various arguinents against the traditional thesis of the decline of sniall property advanced by L. Zancan, Agerpublicus. Ricerche di storia e di dirilto rornano (Padtia, 1935), 41 - 8: M. W. Frederiksen, *The Contribution of Arcliaeology to the Agrarian Problem in tlie Cracchan Period', Dda 4-5 (1971), 330-57 (questioning the aprioristic view of a direct link betweeri the development of the large Catonian unit and the declioe of the sniall one); W. V. Harris, Home in 210 Archiv f r Religionsgeschichte, 7. Band, 2005 once said that he had decided to announce his candidature for the tribunate after having been visited, in a dream, by his brother, inciting him to be bolder.40 and several fragments of his speeches show explicit references to his tragic destiny.41 As Cicero also pointed out elsewhere,42 honouring the memory of the brother was an act of supreme - and, ultimately, immoderate - pietas, a virtue which Gracchus tried to c splay s often s he could, for instance by opening all his Speeches by an invocation to the gods.43 The celebration of Tiberius' virtues was closely linked to the praise of his par- ents. The story of the snakes conveys the image of a pious statesman, who does not fear death and succeeds in being at the same time a devoted husband and a wise citizen. His choice to consult the haruspices was remarkable, and the political im- plications of Gaius Gracchus' narrative can hardly be overlooked: at least until Caesar's time, there is no other evidence for haruspices being consulted by a private citizen.44 Cornelia's case is even more interesting, and her image much more un- usual. When an anonymous political competitor referred rudely to her, Gracchus replied very explicitly: σõ ãáñ ... Κορνηλίαν λοιδορείς την Τιβέριον τεκουσαν ("What? Do you abuse Cornelia, who gave birth to Tiberius?"), adding further hints at the homosexuality of his rival (C. Gr. 4.5). It has been argued, quite convincingly,45 that Cornelia's portrait s a virtuous, and politically competent, matron is an artifice of Gracchan propaganda, cleverly exploited, almost certainly after her death, also by the optimates, who encouraged the publication of her false letters to Gaius, included in the lost Nepos biography.

Etruria and Umbria (Oxford, 1971), 203-6; D. B. Nagle, "The Etrurian Journey of Tiberius Gracchus', Historia 25 (1976), 487-9; id., 'toward a Sociology of Southeastern Etruria', Ath n. s. 57 (1979), 411-36; K. Bringmann, Die Agrarreform des Tiberius Gracchus. Legende und Wirklichkeit (Stuttgart, 1985), 17-8, 23-4 (-Ausgew hlte Schriften [Frankfurt 2001], 174-5, 180—1). "W. Jongman, 'Slavery and the Growth of Rome. The Transformation of Italy in the Second and First Centuries BCE', in C. Edwards-G.Woolf (eds.), Rome the Cosmopolis, Cambridge 2003, 100-122; L. de Ligt, 'Poverty and Demography: the Case of the Gracchan Land Reform', Mnemosyne 4* s. 57 (2004), 725-757." ActuaUy, the shortage of free men available for recruitment in Etruria was already a problem at the time of the Punic wars. As attested by Livy (28.45.13-21), Etrurian cities supported the Roman army only by supplying materials, and not soldiers: cf. M. H. Crawford, 'Army and Coinage in the Late Republic', in La Romanisation du Samnium auxlf et Ã siecles avantJ.-C. (Naples, 1991), 135-7, at 137. 40 Cic. Div. 1.56; 2.136; Plut. C, Gr. 1.7. On the political use of dreams in the Late Republic, see, most recently, W. V. Harris, 'Roman Opinions about the Truthfulness of Dreams', JRS 93 (2003), 18-34, at 26 (not discussing the dream of Gracchus). 41 ORF417 (= Char. p. 313,18); ORF' 47 (= Schol. Bob. in Cic. S ll. p. 81,18). 42 Brut. 126; cf. Har. resp. 43. 43 Serv. adAen. 11.301. See the references to the haruspex Spurinna in Cic. Div. 1.119; Val. Max. 8.11.2; Suet. lul. 81.2. However, I would not exclude that Spurinna was performing his duty s a member of the staff of the dictator, rather than s the haruspex usually consulted by an important citizen. The available evidence is listed by Thulin, Disciplin (n. 36), 135 and id., RE l (n. 36), 2434. On the friendship between Gaius Gracchus and the haruspex Herennius Siculus, see n. 54. 45 See L. A. Burkhardt and J. von Ungern-Sternberg (n. 8), 109-24; C. Petrocelli, 'Cornelia, la matrona', in A. Fraschetti (ed.), Roma alfemminile (Rome-Bari, 1994), 21-70, at 51-5. F. Santangelo, The Religious Tradition of the Gracchi 211

The evidence which has been reconsidered here may allow us to establish some features of the 'Gracdhan' portrait of Cornelia. She sustained the loss of her husband witli deep dignity and educated her sons in the name of traditional Roman virtues (the anecdote of tlie jewels, where her interlocutor is a proud woman from Campania, should prove that), even refusing the wedding proposal of the king of Egypt, one of the riebest inen in the world. Such an exemplary portrait was an important resource for the propaganda of Gaius Gracchus, a politician who under- stood how important 4giving a good example' could be, and chose to leave his house on die Palatine to live near the Forum, where plebeian habitations were concen- trated (Plut. C. Gr. 13.1).46 M. Sordi47 suggested that Gracchus built the image of a pious family because he was eager to obtain religious legitimacy: it is a persuasive argument, though it may not be the only explanation for his strategy. His brother had been killed by the pontifex maxunus, Publius Scipio Nasica, and the so-called unfavourable tradition accused him of impiety, or at least of scepticism, pointing to his close relationship with the (Stoic?) philosopher Blossius, who was said to have incited him to ignore the unfavourable portents which appeared on the day of his death.48 In a recent study, J. Linderski has interestingly suggested that the assault on Tiberius was led by Nasica exploiting a complex set of ritual elements, all evoking die immolation of an enemy of die Republic, who was guilty of adfectatio regni, and therefore de- ser\red to be forfeited to Jupiter Capitolinus.49

40 In his Speeches, Gracchus often emphasised his irreprehensible conduct and his incor- ruptibility: see ORF' 26-28, 44. M. Sordi. 'La tradizione storiografica su Tiberio Sempronio Gracco e la propaganda contemporanea', in Sesta Misceüanea Oreca e Romana (Rome, 1978), 299-330, at 327-30; id., maestri greci di Tiberio Gracco e la polemica antigraccana', in Sodalitas l (Naples, 1984), 125-36. The importance of religion in the strategy chosen by Gaius Gracchus to represent his family was already pointed out by E. Schwarte, in Gott. Gel Anz. 158 (1896), 793. 48 Plut. Tib. Gr. 17.5. C. Bergemann, Politik und Religion im Spätrepublikanischen Rom (Stuttgart, 1992), 97-8 seems to view the episode äs historically true; cf. the more cautious approach of V. Roseberger, Gezähmte Götter. Das Prodigienwesen der römischen Republik (Stuttgart. 1998), 215-6. On Blossius' approach to divination, see the interesting remarks of C. Levy, 'De Chrysippe a Posidonius: variations sto'iciennes sur le theme de la divination', in J.-G. Heintz (ed.), Oracles et propheties dan* l'antiqutä (Paris, 1997), 321-43, at 321-2 and 343. About the possible influence of Blossius on the political initiatives of Tiberius Gracchus, see T. S. Brown, 'Greek Miuence on Tiberius Gracchus', CJ 42 (1946/47), 471-3; F. Smuts, 'Stoisynse invloed op Tiberius Gracchus', AClass \ (1958), 106-16; J. B. Becker, 'The Influence of Roman Stoicism upoii the Gracchan Economic Reforms', PP 19 (1964), 125-34; C. Nicolet, 'L'lnspira- rion de Tiberius Gracchus. A propos d*'un liwe recent', REA 67 (1967), 142-58; A. Erskine, The Hellenutic Stoa. Political Thought and Action (London, 1990), 161-7; G. Zeccchini, // pensiero politico romano. DaWeta arcaica al/a tarda antichita (Rome, 1997), 41-3; M. Pani, La politica in Roma antica. Cultura e prassi (Rome, 1997), 77-80. However, Blossius' political positions may have been condiuoried by his Italic origins too: cf. D.R. Dudley, 'Blossius of Cumae*, JRS 31 (1941), 94-9. * See J. Linderski, The Pontiff and the Tribüne: the Death of Tiberius Gracchus', Ath n. s. 90 (2002), 338-66, e»p. 351-52, 364-5. Also cf. E. Badian, 'The Pig arid the Priest', in H. Heftner arid K. Tomaschitz (eds.), Ad Fontes! Festschrift für Gerhard Dobesch zum ßinfundsechzigsten Geburtstag am 15. September 2004, Vienna 2004, 263-272. 212 Archiv f r Religionsgeschichte, 7. Band, 2005

The political context itself in which the work of Gaius Gracchus circulatecl is probably the strengest argument for not interpreting the snakes anecdote just s a supreme example of Tiberius Gracchus' unconditional affection for Cornelia. Gaius Gracchus wanted to avoid the post-rnortem accusations against bis brother being reflected upon himself, and he chose to use bis family background for the purpose. Actually, he did not need to distort the facts to show that bis ancestors had re- spected, and defended, Roman religious tradition. In 204, a Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus was inaugurated when he was still very young (Liv. 29.38.7: admodum adulescens}. It is uncertain whether this young augur was the father of the Gracchi or an unknown homonym;*0 however, Cicero (Nat. D. 2.11) attests that Ti. Grac- chus the Eider certainly became an augur before 163 B.C., the year of bis second consulate, and various sources attest bis proverbial observance of tradition in the performance of this duty.°l Also the first stages of the career of the tribune of 133 must have been consistent with this background, s Plutarch says that he obtained the augurate when he was still very young (Tib. Gr. 4.1) - certainly some time after the death of bis father, s the available evidence shows that the presence of the members of the same gens in the same College was not allowed in the co-optation System which regulated the distribution of Roman priesthoods before the lex Domi- tia was introduced in 104/3 .°2 However, despite the support of a strong family tradition, religion remained a problem for Gaius Gracchus. To mention a crucial episode of bis career: bis adver- saries did not hesitate to use divination when they wanted to stop the settlement of the colony of Junonia, on the site of Carthage, which he had personally promoted. When the report of some obscure prodigies arrived at Rome, it was not difficult to find some haruspices (whom Appian calls μάντεις) inclined to Interpret them s a compelling reason to stop the new settlement.53 Quite convincingly, B. MacBain suggested that the motive for an unfavourable response was not only the Opposition

50 The evidence about this difficult identification is gathered in G. J. Szeinler, The Priests vf the Roman Republic. A Study of Interactions between Priesthoods and Magistracies (Bnissels, 1972), 137-8 (Ti. Sempronius Longus, no. 2 of the list of the augurs), 140 (Ti. Sempronius Gracchus, no. 6). Most problems arise from a passage of Livy (41.21.8-9), reporting, among tlie events of 174 B.C., the death of an augur called Gracchus and of a decemvir called Longus. For different reasons, this piece of Information has been considered inaccurate: see e.g. E. Badian, 'Sulla's Augurate', Arethusa \ (1968), 26-46, at 31 -6; J. A. North, 'Family Strategy and Priesthood in the Late Repuhlic7, in J. Andreau, H. Bruhns (eds.), Parente et strategies familiales dans l'antiquite romaine (Rome, 1990), 527-43, at 530-1, n. 9. An anecdote concerning his zeal in presiding over consular elections for 162 B.C.: Nat. D.. 2.10-11; Div. 1.33, 2.74; Q. Fr. 2.2.1. See also Val. Max. 1.1.3; de vir. HL 44.2; Plut. Marc. 5; Gran. Lic. 28.25-6, with the useful commentary provided by B. Scardigli, Grani Liciniani Reliquiae (Florence, 1983), 34-8. Further evidence on Gracchus' augurate is provided by Szemler (n. 50), 146, no. 22; on the broader issue of priesthoods and co-optation, see North (n. 50), 533-5, 541. According to Appian, the prodigies were reported to the Senate when Caius Gracchus and Fulvius Flaccus had already come back to Rome, after having begun the settlement of the colony (1.105-6): see E. Gabba (ta.},Appiani Bellorum Cimliurn liber prunns (Florence, 1958), 82-5. Plutarch C. Gr. 11.1-3 says that the portents manifested themselves at the beginning of the expedition, when the tribune was still in Africa. See also Oros. 5.12.2; Obseq. 33. F. Santangelo, The Religious Tradition of the Gracchi 213

of tlie optimales to Gracchus and his colonial initiative: in that phase, tiie Etruscan land-owners, the class froni which the haruspices issued, probably shared an affin- ity with the interests of the Roman Senate.54 It is difficult to determine to what exteiit Tiberius Gracchus' claim to concern for Etrurian agrarian problems was based on a distortion of bistoiical reality, but it is even harder to deny any iinpact of the reform on that part of Italy, or any Intervention of the agrarian cominission.55 * * *

Despite the political nüsfortunes of the author, the historical work(s) of Gaius Gracchus niust have been an important source for the political developments which occurred in Roine between tlie second and first centuries B.C.50 It might not be fortuitous tliat Cornelia's spurious letters to Gaius, probably belonging to a biography of the tribune, were part of Nepos' De Latinis historicis liber.57

°* MacBain (n. 26), 75. However, the isolated case of the hanispex Herennius Siculus, who was a friend of Gaius Gracchus and was also consulted by him (Val. Max. 9.12.6: quo C. Gracchus et hamspice et amico usus fuerat, "who had been Gaius Gracchus' haruspex and friend"), deserves to be nientioned. He was arrested because of his adhesion to the Gracchan cause and chose to kill himself 'a step away froni a public punisliment and the hand of the executioner' (uno gradu a publico supplicio manuque camificis clferior, "one step behind a public punishinent and the hand of the executioner"). See also Vell. 2.7.2. Unfortunately, those references are too vague to allow a better contextualisation of this character (possibly, he came froni Volsinii: see Torelli [n. 29], 122, n. 1). In the Roman sources, Etruscan haruspices usually appear äs anonymous groups of priests, while the names of individuals are well attested in Etruscan local records: see J. North, 'Diviners and Divination at Rome\ in M. Beard, J. North (eds.), Pagan Priests. Religion and Power in the Ancient World (London, 1990), 51-71, at 67-8. 00 1t is not among the purposes of this paper to discuss the contents of Tiberius Gracchus' land bili. Cf., on this particular problem, E. Gabba, Esercito e societa nella tarda Repubblica romana (Florence, 1973), 201 and W.V. Harris (n. 39), 205; A. Valvo,La «profezia di Fegoia". Proprieta fondiaria e aruspicina in Etruria nel l secolo a.C. (Rome, 1988), 116 argues that no deep change affected Etrurian agrarian and social structures until the Social War. P.A. Brunt, Italian Manpower225B.C. -A.D. 14 (Oxford, 1971), 86-7, 350-3 and A. Carandini, Schiavi in Italia. Gli stnunenti pensanti dei Romani fra tarda Repubblica e tnedio Impero (Florence, 1988), 225- 34 consider Gracchus' narrative reliable; N. Morley, 'The Transfonnations of Italy, 225-28 B.C.', JRS 91 (2001), 50-62, at 49, 60-1, witbout suggesting that he spoke in bad faith, argues that fears for manpower shortage in late II Century B.C. could hardly be referred to the whole of Italy. It has been suspected that his work was the source of the whole tradition which may be classiiied äs 'favourable' to the Gracchi: E. Badian, The Early Historians7, in T. A. Dorey (ed.), The Latin HUtorians, London 1966,1-38, at 13, with fn. 58 and id., The Pig and the Priest' (n. 49), 268-269. H. Fortlage, 'Die Quelle zu Appians Darstellung der politischen Ziele des Ti. Sempronius Gracchus', Helikon 11/12 (1973), 167-91 even tried to prove that Appian's narrative derives frocn Gracchus. HRR 2.38—40, no. 15. Nipperdey (see apparalus) suggestcd reading oratoribus üistead of hUtoricis; cf. N. Horsfall (ed.). Cornelius Nepos. A Selection, inclnding the Lwes of Cato and Anicus (Oxford 1989), 125. P. Cugusi, fcStuoü sulJ'epistolografia latina, I. L'eta preciceroniana', Annali delle Facolia di Lettere FUosoßa e Magistero deWUniversita di Cag/iari\ 33 (1970), 7- 112, al 61-3, denied that Gracchus could be defined äs an historian and supfiosed tliat Ncpos wrote a work De Latinia historicis dealing with various Uterary matters. Thc arguments against the authemicity of the letters seem persuasive: see H. U. Insiinsky, 'Zur Kchtlieilsfrage der 214 Archiv für Religionsgeschichte, 7. Band, 2005

Caius Gracchus raanaged to make his family a fundamental symbol for Roman populär politics until the age of Marius by presenting a renewed form of the genre of family records, already an established presence in Roman political propaganda and a significant one in the development of Roman historiography.58 Populär admi- ration involved not only the two brothers, who, according to Plutarch (C. Gr. 19.3), were honoured äs semi-heroes even years after their death; in about 100 B.C., Cor- nelia, already much venerated in her lifetime, was celebrated by a statue which was still visible in the age of Pliny the Eider.59 The stränge case of Equitius is much more impressive: between 102 and 101, when this obscure descendant of a freed- man presented himself äs the son of Tiberius Gracchus,60 he received enthusiastic support from the plebs. His political consecration was made impossible only by Sempronia, the surviving sister of the tribunes, who publicly refused to acknowl- edge him äs member of the family.61

Brieffragmente der Cornelia', Chiron l (1971), 177-89 with a useful survey of earlier bibliography, and H. Rieger, Das Nachleben des Tiberius Gracchus in der latenischen Literatur (Bonn, 1991), 42-8. Contra, E. A. Hemelrijk, Matrona docta. Educated woinen in the Roman elite from Cornelia to Julia Domna (London-New York, 1999), 193-7. N. Horsfall, The "Letter of Cornelia": yet more Problems', Athenaeum n.s. 65 (1987), 231-4, at 233 takes no stand on this issue. 53 A. Momigliano, Tradition and the Classical Historian', History and Theory 11 (1972), 279-93, at 285-6 (= Quinto contributo alla storia della storiografia classica e del mondo antico l [Rome, 1975], 13-31, at 22-3) viewed family records äs part of an aristocratic historiography whose aim was to narrate the history of Rome 'in support of tradition'; it was Fabius Pictor's interest in change and discontinuity that reshaped Roman historiography on the Greek model. Also cf. T. J. Cornell, The Beginnings ofRotne. Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c. 1000-264 BC) (London-New York, 1995), 9-10. The whole issue is discussed by F. Coarelli, 'La Statue de Cornelie, mere des Gracques et la crise politique a Rome au temps de Saturninus', in Le dernier siede de la Republique romaine et Vepoque augusteenne. Journees d'etude. Strasbourg, 15-16 fevrier 1978 (Strasburg, 1978), 13- 28 (= Revixit ars. Arte e ideologia a Roma. Dai modelli ellenistici alla tradizione repubblicana [Rome, 1996], 280-99). Cf., contra, E. A. Hemelrijk, (n. 57), 52-9 suggests that a tragedy on Caius Gracchus was represented some time after his death and gave a fundamental contribution to the 'Gracchan myth': in his view, it was used by Plutarch too, äs a source for the account of Gracchus' murder. Such an hypothesis seems highly speculative: cf. E. Fantham, JRS 90 (2000), 212-3, at 213, and K. Heldmann, Gnomon 73 (2001), 297-303, at 300-1. However, the lenghty critique by A. Keaveney, 'The Tragedy of Caius Gracchus: Ancient Melodrama or Modern Farce?', Klio 85 (2003), 322-32 is overzealous. 60 According to Val. Max. 9.7.2, Tiberius Gracchus had three children: one of them died prematurely, and the last one was born after his father's death. See L. Gamberale, 'Un probabile errore di latino in Plutarco, 776. Gracch. 13, 6', RFIC 123 (1995), 433-40, also discussing other parallel sources. 61 Val. Max. 3.8.6; de vir. ill. 73.4.