of the objects of his restless and self-sufficient spirit to become the arbiter of parties, and he acted from immediate impulses, without considering nicely the result of his conduct. There was deep meaning in the witticism of Granius, the public crier,who, when Drusus saluted him in the ordinary phrase, Quid agis, Grani?" asked in reply,"Immo vero, tu Druse, quid agis?" (Cic. pro Planc. 14.)
To conciliate the people, Drusus renewed several of the propositions and imitated the measures of the Gracchi. He proposed and carried laws for the distribution of corn, or for its sale at a low price, and for the assignation of public land (leges frumentariae, agrariae, Liv. Epit. lxxi.). The establishment of several colonies in Italy and Sicily, which had long been voted, was now effected. (Appian, de Bell. Civ. i. 35.) Nothing could surpass the extravagance of the largesses to which he persuaded the senate to accede. (Tac. Ann. iii. 27.) He declared that he had been so bountiful, that nothing was left to be given, by any one else, but air and dirt, "coelum aut coenum." (De Vir. Ill. 66; Flor. iii. 17.) It was probably the exhaustion of the public treasury produced by such lavish expenditure that induced him to debase the silver coinage by the alloy of one-eighth part of brass. (Plin. H. N. xxxiii. 18.) Presumptuous, arrogant, and rash, he assumed a station to which he was not entitled by authority and experience, notwithstanding the splendour of his birth and the power of his eloquence. But his energy went far (as energy like his always will do) in silencing opposition, and begetting submission to his will. Once, when the senate invited his attendance at their place of meeting, he sent a message in answer: "Let them come to me—to the Curia Hostilia, near the Rostra," and they were so abject as to obey. (Val. Max. ix. 5. § 2: "Cum senatus ad eum misisset, ut in Curiam veniret. Quare non potius, inquit, ipse in Hostiliam, propinquain Rostris, id est, ad me venit?" This passage is remarkable for the opposition between Curia and Hostilia; whereas it is ordinarily stated that, in classical writers, Curia, without more, denotes the Curia Hostilia.)
Such conduct naturally produced a reaction of feeling among some proud men, who had a high sense of their own importance, saw the false position in which their party was placed, and disliked pushing effrontery. In Cicero (de Orat. iii. 1, 2) we find a description of a scene full of turbulence and indecorum, where Philippus, the consul, inveighs against the senate, while Drusus and the orator Crassus withstand him to the face. From the known politics of the persons concerned, this scene is exceedingly difficult to explain; but we believe that it occurred at a period in the career of Drusus when he had not yet identified himself with the formidable cabals of the Latins and Italians, and when, in spite of his popular measures, he still retained the confidence of the senate, from his resistance to the equites. We believe that the haughty Philippus upbraided the senate for their complaisance to Drusus in favouring the plebs, and that it was the unmeasured rebuke of the aristocrat which roused the esprit de corps of the senator Crassus. We know from other sources that Philippus opposed the passing of the agrarian laws of Drusus, and interrupted the tribune while he was haranguing the assembly; whereupon Drusus sent one of his clients, instead of the regular viator, to arrest the consul. (Val. Max. ix. 5. § 2; Florus, iii. 17, and Auct. de Vir. Ill. vary slightly from each other and from Valerius Maximus.) This order was executed with extreme violence, and Philippus was collared so tightly, that the blood started from his nostrils; upon which Drusus, taunting the luxurious epicurism of the consul, cried out, "Psha! it is only the gravy of thrushes." (Schottus, ad Auct. de Vir. Ill. 66.)
Having thus bought over the people (who used to rise and shout when he appeared), and having, by promising to procure for them all the rights of citizenship, induced the Latini and Italic socii to assist him, Drusus was able, by force and intimidation, to carry through his measures concerning the judicia ("legem judiciariam pertulit," Liv. Epit. lxxi.). Some writers, following Liv. Epit. lxxi., speak of his sharing the judicia between the senate and the equites; but his intention seems to have been entirely to transfer the judicia to the senate; for, without any positive exclusion of the equites and lower orders, as long as senators were eligible, it is probable that no names but those of senators would be placed by the praetors upon the lists of judices. (Puchta, Institutionen, i. § 71.) We accept the circumstantial statement of Appian (B. C. i. 35), according to which the law of Drusus provided that the senate, now reduced below the regular number of 300, should be reinforced by the introduction of an equal number of new mem- bers selected from the most distinguished of the equites; and enacted that the senate, thus doubled in number, should possess the judicia. The law seems to have been silent as to any express exclusion of the equites; but it might be implied from its language that such exclusion was contemplated, and, so far as its positive enactment referred to the new members, they were entitled to be placed on the list of judices, qua senators, not qua equites. Nor was there any prospective regulation for supplying from the equestrian order vacancies in the judicial lists. To this part of the law was added a second part, appointing a commission of inquiry into the bribery and corruption which the equites had practised while in exclusive possession of the judicia. (Appian, l. c.; compare Cic. pro Rabir. Post. 7, pro Cluent. 56.)
After Drusus had so far succeeded, the reaction set in rapidly and strongly. The Romans, who were usually led as much by feeling as by calculation, required to be managed with peculiar tact and delicacy; but Drusus had a rough way of going to work, which, even in the moment of success, set in array against him the vanity and prejudices of public men; and in his measures themselves there appeared to be a species of trimming, which, while it seemed intended to displease none, was ultimately found to be unsatisfactory to all. It may be that he was actuated by a single-minded desire to do equal justice to all, and to remedy abuses wherever they might lurk, careless of the offence which his reforms might give; but even his panegyrists among the ancients do not view his character in this light. Whatever else were his motives (and we believe them to have been complex—multa varie moliebatur), he appeared to be the slave of many masters. Mob-popularity is at best but fleeting, and those of the people who had not been favoured with the distribution of lands were discontented at the luck of their more
