ARG 7. Band, 198-214 The Religious Tradition of the Gracchi* 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 col- lection 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 re- liquit-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 ha- ruspices 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 libera- tion 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 proba- bly, 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 ad- dressed 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 in- cluded 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, femi- nam 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.