from the upper part of the Capitol, as this part of the hill was sometimes called where the great temple stood, and while standing on the top of the steps, that the Pontifex Maximus of Rome called on every man who cared for the safety of the state to follow him. Drawing the skirt of his toga over his head, most probably to protect himself, and followed by senators who did the same, by many of the Equites and by plebeians of that party, he rushed on the partizans of Gracchus who were standing below on the Area Capitolina. The high priest had the advantage of position in the attack, and it was sudden and furious. He and his followers drove out of the way all whom they met. Many of the crowd gave way without resistance, out of respect to their rank, says Plutarch, but it was a respect enforced by hard blows. The followers of the senators carried sticks and clubs which they had brought from home. The senators armed themselves with what they could wrest from the hands of Gracchus' men, and they seized the fragments of benches and such materials as had been brought on the spot for the purpose of the election. This vigorous onset dispersed the crowd, and those who could not escape were killed. Gracchus in attempting to fly stumbled over some men who were lying on the ground. While he was endeavouring to rise, one of his own colleagues P. Satyreius struck him on the head with the leg of a bench, and one L. Rufus claimed the credit of giving the second blow. Appian says that Gracchus was killed near the doors of the great temple and the statues of the kings; but the tradition, which Velleius followed, was that he was killed as he was running down the Clivus Capitolinus, or the descent from the Capitol. No sword was used. All was done with sticks and stones. The number of killed was three hundred. The Area was cleaned up after this bloody business, and the three hundred carcases were thrown into the Tiber by night. Even the body of Gracchus was refused to his brother Caius, it is said; but as we have also been informed that Caius was in Spain, this story cannot be true, unless Caius returned immediately on being appointed one of the commissioners for the Public Land.

Thus, says Appian, perished Tiberius Gracchus, the son of Gracchus who had been twice consul and of Cornelia the daughter of Scipio who destroyed the power of Carthage. It was, he adds, in the best of causes which he attempted to further by violent means that he lost his life, while still invested with the office of tribune, and the Capitol was the place of the murder. This was the first time that such a crime was committed at Rome in a public assembly, but it was an example that was often followed. The city was divided in opinion about the murder of Gracchus. Some were glad, but others were sorry. Those who were sorry grieved both for themselves and Gracchus, and for the state of affairs, for there would no longer be a constitutional government, but force and violence would prevail. Those who were glad had accomplished what they wished.

Some of Gracchus' friends were banished and others put to death, perhaps without any trial. Among them was Diophanes the teacher of Gracchus. Plutarch reports the almost incredible story of Caius Villius being shut up in a vessel with snakes and vipers till he died. We might be tempted to conjecture that Plutarch or his authorities had made some mistake about the crime that Villius was charged with, for his punishment resembled that which was inflicted for the crime of parricide. The vengeance of the nobles did not end with the year, for the consuls of B.C. 132, P. Popillius Laenas and P. Rupilius, were still engaged under a commission from the Senate in inquiring into the case of the partizans of Gracchus. But as Rupilius was employed in B.c. 132 in suppressing the slave rebellion in Sicily, it is possible that he and his colleague were constituted members of an extraordinary commission in B.C. 133 after their election. C. Laelius was on this commission and also the Pontifex Maximus P. Scipio Nasica. Blossius the friend of Gracchus was brought before the commission. He admitted that he had done every thing at the bidding of Gracchus. Cicero and Plutarch briefly report his examination with variations, as usual in such cases; but the substance of the matter was that Blossius said

he was so convinced of the integrity of Gracchus and his good intentions towards the state that he would have done any thing that Gracchus told him to do. Blossius escaped punishment, from which we may infer that he had friends among the nobility, and indeed Cicero says that he was a friend, 'hospes as the Romans termed it, of the family of the Scaevolae. C. Laelius also appears to have been on intimate terms with him. If he was not released by the commission, he contrived to escape, and made his way to the kingdom of Pergamum, where he joined the pretender Aristonicus, and lost his life.

The people who grieved for the death of Tiberius were only waiting for an opportunity to be revenged on Nasica, who had led the attack on the popular tribune. The hostility to Nasica became so violent that he was not safe in Rome, and the Senate sent him to Pergamum nominally on some mission, and perhaps to look after the property of King Attalus. The Pontifex Maximus, the head of religion at Rome, rambled about despised from place to place till he died no long time after in obscurity in the neighbourhood of the city of Pergamum. Nasica was a man of resolute character, but violent temper. His manners were not pleasing and his oratory was of the impetuous style. Cicero, who in his later writings always expresses himself strongly against both the Gracchi, says that the consul P. Mucius Scaevola maintained that Nasica was justified in the attack upon Tiberius, though Scaevola himself had refused to take the lead in the matter. In the last years of his life Cicero went so far as to affirm that Nasica did as much service to the state by destroying Gracchus, as Scipio had done by the capture of Numantia.

Scipio himself, though a favourite with the people, almost lost his popularity, because it was reported that on hearing at Numantia of the death of his brother-in-law Tiberius he exclaimed in a verse of Homer,—

"So perish all who do the like again."

After the death of Gracchus there were signs and portents which threatened danger to the Roman state. The Sibylline books were consulted, as was the practice on such occasions,

and the holy writings directed the Romans to appease the most antient Ceres. There was in Rome a magnificent temple of the goddess, but her most venerated abode was on the mountain of Henna in Sicily; and accordingly as soon as Rupilius had put down the slave rebellion, there was a mission of priests from the decemviral college of Rome to appease Ceres in her antient and original dwelling-place.

CHAPTER XIV.

THE KINGDOM OF PERGAMUM AND THE
PROVINCE ASIA.

B.C. 133-129.

THE Romans did not take possession of the kingdom of Attalus as soon as they received the news of the bequest, for they were too much engaged with affairs at home. In the mean

time a man named Aristonicus seized the opportunity to assume the royal authority, and he got possession of Leucae, now Lefke, which is situated on a promontory between Phocaea and the mouth of the Hermus. But the Asiatic cities were not disposed to submit to a usurper, whose only title to the throne was his being a reputed bastard son of King Eumenes II. of Pergamum by a woman of Ephesus, the daughter of a musician. Probably too some of the cities were already in the interest of the Romans; and even if they did not wish to be annexed to the great republic, they must have seen that they could not avoid annexation. It is impossible to say whether there was any foundation for the suggestion expressed in a passage in the fourth book of Sallust's Histories that the will of Attalus was a forged instrument; but it seems not improbable that the will which Eudemus carried to Rome was the work of a party devoted to Roman interests, or seeking their own interests under this specious pretext. The passage in Livy's Epitome about the will of Attalus is not easy to understand. It is this: "Aristonicus a son of King Eumenes seized Asia, though, as it was bequeathed by the testament of King Attalus to the Roman people, it ought to have been free." The Epitomizer may have given imperfectly the sense of Livy's text, for it is not