These acts of Tiberius Gracchus are commonly said to have been the beginning of revolution at Rome; and the guilt of it is accordingly laid at his door.  And there can be no doubt that he was guilty in the sense that a man is guilty who introduces a light into some chamber filled with explosive vapour, which the stupidity or malice of others has suffered to accumulate.  But, after all, too much is made of this violation of constitutional forms and the sanctity of the Tribunate. [Sidenote:  Defence of the conduct of Gracchus.] The first were effete, and all regular means of renovating the Republic seemed to be closed to the despairing patriot, by stolid obstinacy sheltering itself under the garb of law and order.  The second was no longer what it had been—­the recognised refuge and defence of the poor.  The rich, as Tiberius in effect argued, had found out how to use it also.  If all men who set the example of forcible infringement of law are criminals, Gracchus was a criminal.  But in the world’s annals he sins in good company; and when men condemn him, they should condemn Washington also.  Perhaps his failure has had most to do with his condemnation.  Success justifies, failure condemns, most revolutions in most men’s eyes.  But if ever a revolution was excusable this was; for it was carried not by a small party for small aims, but by national acclamation, by the voices of Italians who flocked to Rome either to vote, or, if they had not votes themselves, to overawe those who had.  How far Gracchus saw the inevitable effect of his acts is open to dispute. [Sidenote:  Gracchus not a weak sentimentalist.] But probably he saw it as clearly as any man can see the future.  Because he was generous and enthusiastic, it is assumed that he was sentimental and weak, and that his policy was guided by impulse rather than reason.  There seems little to sustain such a judgment other than the desire of writers to emphasise a comparison between him and his brother.  If his character had been what some say that it was, his speeches would hardly have been described by Cicero as acute and sensible, but not rhetorical enough.  All his conduct was consistent.  He strove hard and to the last to procure his end by peaceable means.  Driven into a corner by the tactics of his opponents, he broke through the constitution, and once having done so, went the way on which his acts led him, without turning to the right hand or the left.  There seems to be not a sign of his having drifted into revolution.  Because a portrait is drawn in neutral tints, it does not follow that it is therefore faithful, and those writers who seem to think they must reconcile the fact of Tiberius having been so good a man with his having been, as they assert, so bad a citizen, have blurred the likeness in their anxiety about the chiaroscuro.  No one would affirm that Tiberius committed no errors; but that he was a wise as well as a good man is far more in accordance with the facts than a more qualified verdict would be.