Editing Tiberius Gracchus (section)

=== Passage of the ''lex agraria'' ===

People possessing more than 500 {{Lang|la|jugera}} of land opposed the law strongly. While previous laws had fined occupation in excess of the limit, those fines were rarely enforced and the land possession itself was not disturbed. This led them to invest into improvements to that land, with some protests that the land was part of wives' dowries or the site of family tombs. Tiberius Gracchus' law would seize the land explicitly, a novelty.{{sfn|Roselaar|2010|p=237}} According to Plutarch, Tiberius initially proposed compensation, but the compromise offer was withdrawn after opposition; his later proposal was to compensate by securing tenure over a cap of 500 {{Lang|la|jugera}} (with an additional 250 {{Lang|la|jugera}} for up to two sons).<ref>{{harvnb|Roselaar|2010|p=238}}; {{harvnb|von Ungern-Sternberg|2014|p=79}}; {{harvnb|Plut. ''Ti. Gracch.''|loc=10.3}}.</ref>

The exact legislative history of the bill is disputed: Appian and Plutarch's accounts of the bill's passage differ considerably.{{sfn|Badian|1979|p=455}} At a broad level, the bill was proposed before the [[Plebeian Council|''concilium plebis'']]; Tiberius forwent the approval of the senate before a bill was to be introduced. In response, the senate secured one of his tribunician colleagues to veto the proceedings.{{sfn|von Ungern-Sternberg|2014|p=79}} Both versions agree on obstruction from Marcus Octavius, one of the other tribunes, and his deposition.{{sfn|Badian|1979|p=456}}<ref>Sources differ as to whether Octavius was one of Tiberius' friends; Plutarch delivers a dramatic scene of emotional entreaties while Dio attributes Octavius' opposition to a family feud. {{Cite journal |last1=Beness |first1=J Lea |last2=Hillard |first2=T W |date=2001 |title=The theatricality of the deaths of C Gracchus and friends |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S000983880100012X/type/journal_article |journal=Classical Quarterly |volume=51 |issue=1 <!--|pages=135–140--> |doi=10.1093/cq/51.1.135 |issn=0009-8388 |page=137, n. 14 }} {{harvnb|Plut. ''Ti. Gracch.''|loc=10–11}} and Dio, 24.83.4.</ref>

In Plutarch's account, Tiberius proposes a bill with various concessions, which is then vetoed by [[Marcus Octavius]], one of the other tribunes. In response, he withdraws the bill and removes the concessions. This latter bill is the one debated heavily in the forum. Tiberius tries various tactics to induce Octavius to abandon his opposition: offering him a bribe and shutting down the Roman treasury, and thereby, most government business. When the Assembly eventually assembles to vote, a veto is presumed. They attempt to adjudicate the matter in the senate, to no avail, and the Assembly votes to depose Octavius from office when he maintains his veto. Following the deposition, Tiberius' freedmen drag Octavius from the Assembly and the Assembly passes the bill.{{sfn|Badian|1979|p=455}}{{sfn|Lintott|1994|p=67}}

In Appian's account, however, there is only one bill: opposition from Octavius appears only at the final vote, leading to the dispute to be taken to the senate, and then Octavius' deposition followed by the bill's passage.{{sfn|Badian|1979|pp=455–56}} Prior to the vote, Tiberius gives a number of speeches, in which Appian asserts that Tiberius passed the bill on behalf of all Italians.{{sfn|Badian|1979|p=456}}

The political dispute between Tiberius and Octavius lacked clear resolution because of the unwritten Roman constitution's flexibility. The system, which worked best when magistrates worked cooperatively, broke down when magistrates exploited the legal extent of their powers fully and contrary to existing norms.{{sfn|von Ungern-Sternberg|2014|p=80}} Both men, being tribunes, represented the plebs and their interests. Octavius insisted on maintaining his veto against his constituents; Tiberius' response was to unconstitutionally depose Octavius.{{sfn|Flower|2010|pp=83–84}}<ref>{{harvnb|Mackay|2009|p=43|ps=. "Rome had no written constitution, merely the interpretation of the inherited system on the basis of precedent... There was no constitutional precedent for deposing a tribune, since such a thing had never happened, and it had never occurred to anyone that such a thing might happen". }}</ref> Tiberius had extra-constitutionally bypassed the senate by bringing the {{lang|la|lex agraria}} without its consent; Octavius similarly extra-constitutionally attempted to obstruct the manifest will of the people by veto.{{sfn|Brunt|1988|p=22}}