The Project Gutenberg EBook of Public Lands and Agrarian Laws of the Roman Republic, by Andrew Stephenson This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org Title: Public Lands and Agrarian Laws of the Roman Republic Author: Andrew Stephenson Release Date: June 16, 2004 [EBook #12638] Language: English Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 *** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PUBLIC LANDS AND AGRARIAN *** Produced by Juliet Sutherland, Lesley Halamek and PG Distributed Proofreaders JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES IN HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL SCIENCE HERBERT B. ADAMS, Editor History is past Politics and Politics present History—Freeman NINTH SERIES VII-VIII PUBLIC LANDS AND AGRARIAN LAWS OF THE ROMAN REPUBLIC BY ANDREW STEPHENSON, PH.D. Professor of History, Wesleyan University BALTIMORE THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS JULY-AUGUST, 1891 Copyright, 1891, BY THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS. PREFACE. In the following pages it has been my object to trace the history of the domain lands of Rome from the earliest times to the establishment of the Empire. The plan of the work has been to sketch the origin and growth of the idea of private property in land, the expansion of the ager publicus by the conquest of neighboring territories, and its absorption by means of sale, by gift to the people, and by the establishment of colonies, until wholly merged in private property. This necessarily involves a history of the agrarian laws, as land distributions were made and colonies established only in accordance with laws previously enacted. My reason for undertaking such a work as the present is found in the fact that agrarian movements have borne more or less upon every point in Roman constitutional history, and a proper knowledge of the former is necessary to a just interpretation of the latter. This whole question presents numerous obscurities before which it has been necessary more than once to hesitate; it offers, both in its entirety and in detail, difficulties which I have at least earnestly endeavored to lessen. These obscurities and difficulties, arising in part from insufficiency of historical evidence and in part from the conflicting statements of the old historians, have been recognized by all writers and call forth on my part no claim for indulgence. This monograph is intended as a chapter merely of a history of the public lands and agrarian laws of Rome, written for the purpose of a future comparison with the more recent agrarian movements in England and America. ANDREW STEPHENSON. MlDDLETOWN, CONN. May 8, 1891. TABLE OF CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. Sec. 1. LANDED PROPERTY Sec. 2. QUIRITARIAN OWNERSHIP Sec. 3. AGER PUBLICUS Sec. 4. ROMAN COLONIES CHAPTER II. Sec. 5. LEX CASSIA Sec. 6. AGRARIAN MOVEMENTS BETWEEN 486 AND 367 (a) Extension of Territory by conquest up to the year 367 B.C. (b) Colonies Founded between 454 and 367 Sec. 7. LEX LICINIA Sec. 8. AGRARIAN MOVEMENTS BETWEEN 367 AN 133 (a) Extension of Territory by conquest between 367 and 133 (b) Colonies Founded between 367 and 133 Sec. 9. LATIFUNDIA Sec. 10. INFLUENCE OF SLAVERY Sec. 11. LEX SEMPRONIA TIBERIANA Sec. 12. LEX SEMPRONIA GAIANA CHAPTER III. Sec. 13. LEX THORIA Sec. 14. AGRARIAN MOVEMENTS BETWEEN 111 AND 86 Sec. 15. EFFECT OF THE SULLAN REVOLUTION Sec. 16. AGRARIAN MOVEMENTS BETWEEN 86 AND 59 Sec. 17. LEX JULIA AGRARIA Sec. 18. DISTRIBUTION OF LAND AFTER THE CIVIL WAR BETWEEN CÆSAR AND POMPEY Sec. 19. DISTRIBUTIONS FROM THE DEATH OF CÆSAR TO THE TIME OF AUGUSTUS (a) Lex Agraria of Lucius Antonius (b) Lex de Colonis in Agros Deducendis (c) Second Triumvirate Compiler's Appendix Images of the original, accented, Greek quotations PUBLIC LANDS AND AGRARIAN LAWS OF THE ROMAN REPUBLIC. CHAPTER I. SEC. 1.—LANDED PROPERTY. The Romans were a people that originally gave their almost exclusive attention to agriculture and stock-raising. The surnames of the most illustrious families, as Piso (miller), Porcius (swine-raiser), Lactucinius (lettuce-raiser), Stolo (a shoot), etc., prove this. To say that a man was a good farmer was, at one time, to bestow upon him the highest praise.[1] This character, joined to the spirit of order and private avarice which in a marked degree distinguished the Romans, has contributed to the development among them of a civil law which is perhaps the most remarkable monument which antiquity has left us. This civil code has become the basis of the law of European peoples, and recommends the civilization of Rome to the veneration of mankind. The corner-stone of this legislation was the constitution of the law of property.[2] This property applies itself to everything in the law of Rome, to land, to persons and to obligations. Urbs, the name of the village, takes its origin, according to an etymology given by Varro,[3] from the furrow which the plow traced about the habitations of the earliest dwellers. But what is of more interest to us is that the legal signification of Urbs and Roma was different. The former was the village comprised within the sacred enclosure; the latter was the total agglomeration of habitations which composed the village, properly[4] so called, and the outskirts, or suburbs. The powers of certain magistrates ceased with the sacred limits of the Urbs, while the privileges accorded to a citizen of Rome extended to the village and the suburbs and finally embraced the entire Roman world. The most ancient documents which have reached us from the history of India and Egypt reveal that they had landed property fully established, while Roman annals reveal to us the very creation of this institution. Whatever modern criticism may deduce, Dionysius, Plutarch, Livy, and Cicero agree in representing the first king of Rome as merely establishing public property in Roman soil. This national property, the people possessed in common and not individually. Such appears to us to be the quiritarian property par excellence[5] and its primitive form was a variety of public community[6] of which individual property was but a later solemn emancipation. To this historic theory attaches the true notion of quiritarian land of which we will speak in greater detail hereafter. As regards the organization and constitution of individual and private property, the traditions themselves attribute this to the second king of Rome, the real founder of Roman society, who divided the territory among the citizens, marking off the limits of individual shares and placing them under the protection of religion. In this way a religious charter was granted to the institutions of private property. Thus a primitive division of territory appears to have been the basis of these varied traditions, but the precise form of this division eludes us. The Roman territory was confined for many ages to a surface of very limited extent, which properly bore the name of Ager Romanus. This name with signification slightly changed appeared to be still in use in the time of the empire, and even at the present day a portion of the Roman territory which very nearly corresponds to the ancient territory of the imperial period is called Agro Romano.[7] That which was properly called Ager Romanus at first only occupied the surface of a slightly expanded arc whose chord was the river Tiber.[8] Primitive Rome did not extend beyond the Tiber into Etruria, and toward Latium her possessions did not extend beyond the limits of some five or six miles reckoning from the Palatine. Toward the east the towns of Antemnae, Fidenae, Caenina, Collatia and Gabia lay in the immediate neighborhood, thus limiting the extension of the city in that direction within a radius of five or six miles;[9] and northward the Anio[10] formed the limit. To the southwest as you approach Lavinium, the sixth milestone marked the boundary of Rome. Thus with the possible exception of a small strip of land extending upon either bank of the Tiber to its mouth, and embracing the old site[11] of Ostia, have we marked out all of ancient Rome. Strabo[12] says it could be gone round in a single day. And according to this same author it was within these limits that the annual auspices[13] could be taken. Both city and land increased with time. Property seemed to have been added and lost successively during the reign of the kings.[14] The last increase of the Ager Romanus was due to the labors of Servius Tullius, and it was in the reign of this king that it reached its greatest limit. Dionysius[15] says: "As soon as he (Servius) was invested with the government, he divided the public lands among such of the Romans as having no lands of their own, cultivated those of others.... He added two hills to the city, that called the Viminal and the Esquiline hill, each of which forms a considerable city; these he divided among such Romans as had no houses, to the intent that they might build them.... This king was the last who enlarged the circumference of the city by the addition of these two hills to the other five, having first consulted the auspices as the law decided, and performed the other religious rites. Further than this the city has not since then been extended." Without doubt these possessions received great additions in later times,[16] but they were not incorporated in the Ager Romanus as the preceding had been. The subjugated territories kept their ancient names while their lands were made the object of distributions to the people, of public sales to the citizens who also extended their possessions outside of Roman[17] territory, or else the new conquests were abandoned to municipia, given up to colonies, or became a part of that which was called Ager Publicus. In fine, it was a fundamental principle of the public law of Rome that the lands and the persons of the people conquered belonged to the conqueror, the Roman people, who either in person or by their delegates disposed of them as it seemed best. Among the ancients war always decided concerning both liberty and property. The result of all these facts was that the Roman territory was made the object of a division or a primitive distribution either among the three races of the first population, or a little later among the citizens or inhabitants. This very same principle has been frequently observed in recent times in regard to confiscated[18] territories and conquered peoples. Now what was the allotment of the first distribution of land? Upon this topic the ancient authorities are blind and confusing to such an extent as to be wholly inadequate for the solution of the difficulty. Among the more recent authorities, two opposing systems have been sustained, the one represented by Montesquieu, and the other by Niebuhr. (1) According to Montesquieu, the kings of Rome divided the land into perfectly equal lots for all the citizens and the title of the law of the Twelve Tables relative to successions was for no other object than to establish this ancient equality of the division of lands.[19] (2) Niebuhr,[20] on the contrary, claimed that territorial property was primitively the attribute of the patriciate and everyone who was not a member of this noble race was incapable of possessing any part of the territory. From this theory the author deduced numerous consequences which are important both to law and history. Neither of these systems is free from errors. Montesquieu seems to have made no difference between patrician and plebeian in using the term citizen, while it is no longer disputed that the plebeian was not a burgess and consequently had no civic rights save those granted to him by the ruling class. His idea of goods must have, at least, become chimerical at a very early date, as this equality was so little suspected by the ancients that Plutarch,[21] after having spoken of the efforts of Lycurgus to overturn the inequality of wealth among the Spartans, accuses Numa of having neglected a necessity so important. It is moreover difficult to see how Montesquieu could think that testamentary disposition tended to maintain equality when the privilege was accorded to every citizen of disposing of his entire patrimony by will even to the prejudice of his children.[22] Again, the law of debts was hardly favorable[23] to equality. Niebuhr clearly[24] denied the existence of the plebs until Ancus incorporated the Latins and bestowed upon them peculiar privileges thus forming a new and third class distinct from both patricians and clients. Had Niebuhr succeeded in establishing this view, the right to landed property would appear to be wholly vested in the patricians, for a client, from the very nature of his position, could hold nothing independent of his master. But this theory has fallen to the ground and no writer of the present day pretends to uphold it. The plebeians existed from the very first and some of them held land in full private ownership very little different from the quiritarian ownership of the patricians. Cicero, who in his Republic[25] has occupied himself with the ancient constitution of Rome and has spoken in detail of the division of the lands, always speaks of the distribution among the citizens without regard to quality of patrician or plebeian, divisit viritim civibus. He has nowhere written that territorial riches were the exclusive appanage of the patriciate. It must be confessed, however, that it is doubtful whether he intended to embrace the plebeians in his civibus. For more than two centuries before the time of Cicero the plebeians had enjoyed the full rights of Roman citizenship, but for more than that length of time property had been concentrated in the hands of the aristocracy. This result was the consequence of the Roman constitution[26] and the establishment of a populous city in the midst of a narrow surrounding country. Roman policy had never been conducive to this concentration, and it will hereafter appear that the nobility who had the chief direction and administration of public affairs had little by little usurped the property which formed the domain of the state, i.e. Ager Publicus, and swallowed up the revenues due the treasury. [Footnote 1: Cato, De Re Rustica, I, lines 3-8. "Majores nostri ... virum bonum cum laudabant, ita laudabant, bonum agricolam bonumque colonum. Amplissime laudari existimabatur, qui ita laudabatur."] [Footnote 2: Muirhead, Roman Law, 36 et seq.] [Footnote 3: Varro, De Lingua Latina, V, 143.] [Footnote 4: Frag, to Digest, 287 and 147 of Title 16, Bk. 50 with notes of Schultung and Small.] [Footnote 5: Plutarch's Romulus, § 19.] [Footnote 6: Mommsen, History of Rome, l, 194.] [Footnote 7: Sismondi, Etudes sur l'econ. polit., 1, 2, § 1.] [Footnote 8: Pseudo Fabius Pictor, Bk. I, p. 54; Plut., Numa, 16; Festus V° Pectustum Palati, p. 198 and 566, Lindemann.] [Footnote 9: Arnold, Roman History, I, ch. 3, par. 4.] [Footnote 10: Mommsen, I, 75.] [Footnote 11: Strabo, Bk. 5, 253.] [Footnote 12: Strabo, Bk. 5, ch. 3, § 2.] [Footnote 13: Arnold, I, ch. 3.] [Footnote 14: Dionysius, II, 55; V, 33, 36; III, 49-50; Livy, I, 23-36.] [Footnote 15: Dionysius, IV, 13.] [Footnote 16: Varro, De Lingua Latina, V, 33.] [Footnote 17: Sigonius, De Antiq. Juris Civ. Rom., Bk. I, ch. 2.] [Footnote 18: Hume's Hist, of Eng., I, ch. 4: IV, ch. 61.] [Footnote 19: Esprit des lois, Liv. 27, c. 1.] [Footnote 20: Roman Hist., II, 164; III, 175 and 211.] [Footnote 21: Lycurgus and Numa, II; Cicero, De Repub., II, 9.] [Footnote 22: Muirhead, Roman Law, 46 and note—"uti legasset suae rei ita jus esto."] [Footnote 23: Muirhead, 92-96.] [Footnote 24: Niebuhr, I.] [Footnote 25: Momm., I, 126; Ihne, I; Nitzsch, Geschichte der römischen Republik, 52; Lange, Römische Geschichte, I, 18.] [Footnote 26: Dureau de la Malle, Mém. sur les pop. de l'Italie, 500 et seq.] SEC. 2.—QUIRITARIAN OWNERSHIP. Citizenship was the first requisite to the right of property in Roman territory. This rule, although invariable and inherent in the Roman state, bent under the influence of international politics or the philosophy of law, yet its severity affords us a notable characteristic of the law of ancient Rome. Cicero and Gaius have preserved to us an important monument of this law in a fragment of the Twelve Tables which proclaims the solemn principle, adversus hostem aeterna auctoritas esto.[1] Hostis in the old Latin language was synonymous with stranger, perigrinus[2] This Roman name was moreover applied to a person who had forfeited the protection of the law by reason of a criminal condemnation, and who was therefore designated peregrinus.[3] Auctoritas also had in old Latin a different signification from what it has in later Latin. It expressed the idea of the right to claim and defend in equity. It was very nearly equivalent to the right of property.[4] The sense of the Roman law was, then, that the peregrinus could not bar or proceed against a Roman, a disposition somewhat similar to the old law of England.[5] And as it was necessary to be a citizen in order to acquire by the civil and solemn means which dominated the law of property in Rome, it followed that the peregrini were excluded from all right to property in land by these laws. This exclusive legislation for a long time governed Europe and did not disappear even from the Code Napoleon of 1819.[6] We have a forcible example of the severity of the old Roman law in this regard in the text of Gaius,—Aut enim ex jure quiritium unusquisque dominus erat, aut non intelligebatur dominus.[7] Dominium was therefore inseparable from Jus Quiritium, the law of the Roman city, the optimum jus civium Romanorum. The peregrinus was excluded from landed property both Roman and private; he could neither inherit nor transmit; claim nor defend in equity. Moreover the name peregrinus was not confined to the stranger proper but was also bestowed upon subjects of Rome[8] who, being deprived of their property and also of political liberty by right of conquest, had not received the right of citizenship which was for a long time confined within very narrow limits. It would thus appear conclusive from the law quoted that the client and plebeian could not at first hold land optimo ex jure quiritium. Thus the tenure of the patricians was threefold: First, they had full property in the land; second, they had a seigniorial right, jus in re, in the land of their clients and the plebeians whose property belonged to the populus, i.e. the generality of the patricians; in the third place, in their own hands, they held lands which were portions of the domain and which were held by a very precarious tenure called possessio. According to Ihne, all lands in Rome were held by the above mentioned tenure until the enactment of the Icilian law de Aventino publicando which involved a change of tenure by converting the former dependent and incumbered tenure of the plebeians into full property. [Footnote 1: De Officiis, I, 12; Gaius, Frag., 234: Digest, 50, 16.] [Footnote 2: Varro, De L.L.V. 14; Plautus, Trinummus, Act I, Scene 2, V. 75; Harper's Latin Dictionary; Cicero, De Off., I, 12: "Hostis enim apud majores nostros is dicibatur, quem nunc peregrinum dicimus."] [Footnote 3: Cic., loc. cit.; Gaius, Frag., 234.] [Footnote 4: Forcellini, Lexic.; Harper's Latin Lex.] [Footnote 5: i.e. The descendents of a person escheated could bring no action for the recovery of the property.] [Footnote 6: Giraud, Recherches sur le Droit de Propriété, p. 210.] [Footnote 7: Gaius, Bk. II, 40.] [Footnote 8: Ulpian, Frag., Title XIX, 4; Giraud, 216.] SEC. 3.—AGER PUBLICUS. In her early history Rome was continually making fresh conquests, and in this way adding to her territory.[1] She steadfastly pursued a course of destruction to her neighbors in order that she might thereby grow rich and powerful. In this way large tracts of territory became Roman land, the property of the state or Ager Publicus.[2] This public land extended in proportion to the success of the Roman arms, since the confiscation of the territory of the vanquished was, in the absence of more favorable terms, a part of the law of war. All conquered lands before being granted or sold to private individuals were Ager Publicus[3] a term which with few exceptions came to embrace the whole Roman world. This Ager Publieus was farther increased by towns[4] voluntarily surrendering themselves to Rome without awaiting the iron hand of war. These were commonly mulcted of one-third of their land.[5] "The soil of the country is not the product of labor any more than is water or air. Individual citizens cannot therefore lay any claim to lawful property in land as to anything[6] produced by their own hands." The state in this case, as the representative of the rights and interests of society, decides how the land shall be divided among the members of the community, and the rules laid down by the state to regulate this matter are of the first and highest importance in determining the civil condition of the country and the prosperity of the people. Whenever but one class among the people is privileged to have property in land a most exclusive oligarchy is formed.[7] When the land is held in small portions by a great number and nobody is legally or practically excluded from acquiring land, there we find provided the elements of democracy. According to the strictest right of conquest in antiquity the defeated lost not only their personal freedom, their moveable and landed[8] property, but even life itself. All was at the mercy of the conquerors. In practice a modification of this right took place and in Rome extreme severity was applied only in extreme cases, generally as a punishment for treason.[9] This magnanimity was not rare and it even went so far as to restore the whole of the territory to the people subdued.[10] But let us not suppose that this humanity toward a conquered people sprang from any pity inspired by their forlorn condition. It was due merely to the interest of the conquerors themselves. The conquered lands must still be cultivated and the depleted population restored. For this reason the conquered had generally not only life and freedom left them but also the means of livelihood, i.e. some portion of their land. This portion they held subject to no restrictions or services save those levied upon quiritarian property. It was private property to the full legal extent of the expression, thus being in the unlimited disposition of the individual.[11] These people formed the nucleus of the plebeians, the freemen who were members of the Roman state[12] without actually having any political rights. The Ager Publicus was the property of the state and as such could be alienated only by the state.[13] This alienation could be accomplished in two ways: (a). By public sale; (b). By gratuitous distribution. (a). The public sale was merely an auction to the highest bidder and in the later days of the monarchy and early part of the republic, rich plebeians must have become possessed of large tracts of land in this way; the privilege of acquiring property in land having been extended to them some time before the Servian reform.[14] (b). The gratuitous distribution of land was accomplished by means of Agrarian Laws or royal grant and had for its object the establishment of colonies for purposes of defence, the rewarding of veterans or meritorious soldiers,[15] or in later times, the providing for impoverished plebeians. But even in the earliest times a portion of the domain lands was excluded from sale or private appropriation,[16] in order to serve as a resource for the needs of the state. This was the general usage of ancient republics and this maxim of reserved lands was recommended[17] by Aristotle as the first principle of political economy. Such reserved ager publicus was leased either in periods of five years (quinquennial leaseholds) or perpetually, i.e. , by emphyteutic lease or copyhold. From these lands[18] the treasury received an income of from one-tenth to one-fifth of the annual crops. Besides these legal methods mentioned there was another very common one which was seemingly never established by any law and therefore existed merely by title of tolerance. I speak of the indefinite possessio which was nothing but an occupation on the part of the patricians[19] of the land belonging to the state and was in nature quite similar to the so- called "squatting" commonly practiced in some of our western states and territories. The title to the enjoyment of the public lands was at first clearly vested in the patricians nor was this right extended to the plebeians until after they had been admitted to full citizenship. With regard to the state the possessor[20] was merely a tenant at will and could be removed whenever desired; but as regarded other persons he was like the owner of the soil and could alienate the land which he occupied either for a term of years, or forever, as if he were the real proprietor.[21] The public land thus occupied was looked to as a resource upon the admission of new citizens. They customarily received a small freehold according to the general notion of antiquity that a burgess must be a landowner. This land could only be found by a divison of that which belonged to the public, and a consequent ejectment of the tenants at will. In the Greek states every large accession to the number of citizens was followed by a call for a division of the public lands and, as this division involved the sacrifice of many existing interests, it was regarded with aversion by the old burgesses as an act of revolution. A great part of the wealth of the Romans consisted in domains of this kind, and the question will occur to the thoughtful mind how the government was able to keep the most distinguished part of her citizens in a legal position so uncertain and alarming. English law is very different from the Roman in this respect and would decide in favor of the tenant and against the state. It is fairly possible that this uncertainty of tenure tended to render the government more stable and less liable to sudden revolutionary movements, thus having the same effect upon the Roman government which funded debts have upon the nations of to-day. [Footnote 1: Long, Decline of the Roman Rep., I, ch. 11.] [Footnote 2: Muirhead, Roman Law, 92.] [Footnote 3: Ortolan, Histoire de la legislation Romaine, p. 21.] [Footnote 4: Mommsen, I, 131; Arnold, I, 157.] [Footnote 5: Dionysius, IV, 11, Livy.] [Footnote 6: Ihne, I, 175.] [Footnote 7: Ihne, I, 175.] [Footnote 8: Livy, Bk. I, c. 38, with note by Drachenborch; Livy, Bk. VII, c. 31.] [Footnote 9: Siculus Flaccus, De Conditione Agrorum, 2, 3: "Ut vero Romani omnium gentium potiti sunt, agros alios ex hoste captos in victorem populum partiti sunt, alios verro agros vendiderunt, ut Sabinorum ager qui dicitur quaestorius."] [Footnote 10: Cicero, in Verrem, II, Bk. 3, § 6.] [Footnote 11: Giraud, Droit de propriété chez les romains, 160.] [Footnote 12: Ihne, I, 175.] [Footnote 13: Muirhead, 92; Giraud, 165.] [Footnote 14: Higin., De Limit. Const. apud Goes. Rei Agr. Script., pp. 159-160.] [Footnote 15: Giraud, 164.] [Footnote 16: Dionysius, II, 7.] [Footnote 17: Aristotle, Polit., Ζ. Κεφ. θ. 7: Αναγκαιον τοινυν εις δυο μερη διηρησθαι την χωραν και την μεν ειναι κοινην, την δε των ιδιωτων. (Aristotle, Polit., Z. Keph. th. 7: Anagkaion toinun eis duo merae diaeraesthai taen choran kai ton men einai koinaen, taen de ton idioton.)] [Footnote 18: Giraud, 163.] [Footnote 19: Festus, p. 209, Lindemann; Cicero, ad Att. II, 15; Philipp. V, 7; De Leg. Agr. I, 2, III, 3; De Off. II, 22; Livy, II, 61, IV, 51, 53, VI, 4, 15; Suet. Julius Cæsar, 38; Octavius, 13, 32; Cæsar, De Bell. Civ., I, 17; Orosius, V, 18.] [Footnote 20: Aggenus Urbicus, p. 69, ed. Goes.] [Footnote 21: Giraud, 185-187; Mommsen, I, 110; Ortolan, 227; Hunter, Roman Law, 367.] SEC. 4.—ROMAN COLONIES. Probably in no other way does the Roman government so clearly reveal its nature and strength as in its method of colonization. No other nation, ancient or modern, has ever so completely controlled her colonies as did the Roman. Her civil law, indeed, reflected itself in both political and international relations. In Greece, as soon[l] as a boy had attained a certain age his name was inscribed upon the tribal rolls and henceforth he was free from the potestas of his father and owed him only the marks of respect which nature demanded. So too, at a certain age, the colonies separated themselves from their mother city without losing their remembrance of a common origin. This was not so in Rome. The children[2] were always under the potestas of their parents. By analogy therefore, the colonies ought to remain subject to their mother city. Greek colonies went forth into a strange land which had never been conquered by Hellenic arms or hitherto trod by Grecian foot. Roman[3] colonies were established by government upon land which had been previously conquered and which therefore belonged to the Roman domain. The Greek was fired with an ambition to obtain wealth and personal distinction, being wholly free to bend his efforts to personal ends. Not so the Roman. He sacrificed self for the good of the state. Instead of the allurements of wealth he received some six jugera of land, free from taxation it is true, but barely enough to reward the hardest labor with scanty subsistence. Instead of the hope of personal distinction, he in most cases sacrificed the most valuable of his rights, jus suffragii et jus[4] honorum and suffered what was called capitis diminutio. He devoted himself, together with wife and family, to a life-long military service. In fact the Romans used colonization as a means to strengthen their hold upon[5] their conquests in Italy and to extend their dominion from one centre over a large extent of country. Roman colonies were not commercial. In this respect they differed from those of the Phoenicians and Greeks. Their object was essentially military[6] and from this point of view they differed from the colonies of both the ancients and moderns. Their object was the establishment of Roman power. The colonists marched out as a garrison into a conquered town and were exposed to dangers on all sides. Every colony acted as a fortress to protect the boundary and keep subjects to their allegiance to Rome. This establishment was not a matter of individual choice nor was it left to any freak of chance. A decree of the senate decided when and where a colony should be sent out, and the people in their assemblies elected individual members for colonization. From another point of view Roman colonies were similar to those of Greece, since their result was to remove from the centre to distant places the superabundant population, the dangerous,[7] unquiet, and turbulent. But the difference in the location of the colonies was easy to distinguish. In general the Phoenicians and the Greeks as well as modern people founded their colonies in unoccupied localities. Here they raised up new towns which were located in places favorable to maritime and commercial relations. The Romans, on the contrary, avoided establishing colonies in new places. When they had taken possession of a city, they expelled from it a part of the inhabitants, whether to transfer them to Rome as at first, or a little later, when it became necessary to discourage the increase of Roman population, to more distant places. The population thus expelled was replaced with Roman and Latin citizens.[8] Thus a permanent garrison was located which assured the submission of the neighboring countries and arrested in its incipiency every attempt at revolt. In every respect these colonies remained under surveillance and in a dependence the most complete and absolute upon the mother city, Rome. Colonies never became the means of providing for the impoverished and degraded until the time of Gaius Gracchus. When new territory was conquered, there went the citizen soldier. Thus these colonies mark the growth of Roman dominion as the circumscribed rings mark the annual growth of a tree. These colonies were of two kinds, Latin and Roman. 1. Latin colonies were those[9] which were composed of Latini and Hernici, or Romans enjoying the same rights as these, i.e. possessed of the Latin right rather than the Roman franchise. They were established inland as road fortresses and being located in the vicinity of mountain passes or main thoroughfares acted as a guard to Rome, and held the enemy in check. 2. Roman, or Burgess, colonies[10] were those composed wholly of Roman citizens who kept their political rights and consequent close union with their native city. In some cases Latini were given the full franchise and permitted to join these colonies. In position as well as rights, these colonies were distinguished from the Latin, being with few exceptions situated upon the coast and thus acting as guards against foreign invasion. Table of Latin Colonies in Italy. COLONIES. LOCATION. B.C. AUTHORITIES. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Signia. Cerceii. Suessa Pometia. Cora. Velitrae. Norba. Antium. Ardea. Satricum. Sutrum. Nepete. Setia. Cales. Fregellae. Luceria. Suessa. Pontiae. Saticula. Interamna Lirinas. Sora. Alba. Narnia. Carseola. Venusia. Hatria. Cosa. Paestum. Ariminum. Beneventum. Firmum. Aesernia. Brundisium. Spoletium. Cremona. Placentia. Copia. Valentia. Bononia. Aquileia. Latium. " " " " " " " " Etruria. " Latium. Campania. Latium. Apulia. Isle of Latium. Samnium. Latium. " " Umbria. Latium. Apulia. Picenum. Campania. Lucania. Samnium. Picenum. Samnium. Calabria. Umbria. Gallia Cis. " " Lucania. Bruttii. Gallia Cis. Gallia Trans. ? ? ? ? 494 492 467 442 385 383 383 382 334 328 314 313 313 313 312 303 303 299 298 291 289 273 273 268 268 264 263 244 241 218 218 193 192 189 181 Livy, 1, 56; Dionys., 4, 63. Id. Livy, 2, 16. Livy, 2, 16. Livy, 2, 30, 31 ; Dionys., 6, 42, 43. Livy, 2, 34; Dionys , 7, 13. " 3, 1; " 9, 59. " 4, 11; Diodor., 12,34. " 6, 14. Vell., 1, 14. Livy, 6, 21; Vell. Vell., 1,14; Livy, 6, 30. " 1,14; " 8,16. Livy, 8, 22. " Epit., 60. " 9, 28. " 9, 28. " 9, 22; Vell., 1, 14; Festus, p. 340. Livy, 9, 28; Vell, 1, 14; Diodor., 19, 105. Livy, 10, 1; Vell., 1, 14. " 10, 1; " 1, 14. " 10, 10. " 10, 13. Vell., 1, 14; Dionys. Ex., 2335. Livy, Epit., 11. " " 14; Vell., 1, 14. Id. Id. Vell., 1, 14; L. Epit., 15; Eutrop., 2, 16. Vell., 1, 14; L. Epit., 15; Eutrop., 2, 16. Vell., 1, 14. " 1, 14; L. Epit., 16. " 1, 14; " 19. " 1, 14; " 20. 218 Tacitus, Hist., 3,35. L. Epit., 20; Polyb., 3, 40; V. 1, 14, 8. Livy, 34, 53. " 34, 40; 35,40. " 37, 57; Vell., 1, 15. " 40, 34; " " Table of Civic Colonies in Italy. COLONIES. LOCATION. B.C. AUTHORITIES. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Ostea. Labici. Antium. Auxur. Minturnae. Sinuessa. Sena Gallica. Castrum Novum. Aesium. Alsium. Fregena. Pyrgi. Puteoli. Volturnum. Liturnum. Salernum. Buxentum. Sipontum. Tempsa. Croton. Potentia. Pisaurum. Parma. Mutina. Saturnia. Graviscae. Luna. Auximum. Fabrateria. Minervia. Neptunia. Dertona. Eporedia. Narbo Martius. Latium. " " " Campania. " Umbria. Picenum. Umbria. Etruria. " " Campania. " " " Lucania. Apulia. Bruttii. " Picenum. Umbria. Gallia Cis. Gallia Cis. Etruria. " " Picenum. Latium. Bruttii. Iapygia. Liguria. Gallia Trans. Gallia Narbo. 418 418 338 329 296 296 283 283 247 247 245 191 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 184 184 183 183 183 181 180 157 124 122 122 100 100 118 Livy, 1, 33; Dionys., 3, 44; Polyb., 6, 29; Cic. de R.R., 2, 18, 33. Livy, 4, 47, 7. " 8, 14. " 8, 21; 27, 38; Vell. 1, 14. Livy, 10, 21. " 10, 21; 27, 38. " Epit., 11; Vell., 1, 14, 8. Livy, Epit., 11; Vell., 1, 14, 8. Vell., 1, 14, 8. " 1, 14, 8; L. Epit., 19; L., 36, 3. Livy, 36, 3. " " " 34, 45. Id. Id. Id. Livy, 34, 45. Id. Id. Id. Livy, 39, 44. " " " " " 55. Livy, 39, 55. " " " " 40, 39. " 41, 13. Vell., 1, 15, 3. " 1, 15, 4. " 1, 15, 4; Appian B.C., 2, 23. Id. Vell., 1, 15, 5. " " " Mommsen. [Footnote 1: Bouchaud, M.A., Dissertation sur les colonies romaines, pp. 114-222, en Memoires de l'institut Sciences, Morals et Politique, III.] [Footnote 2: Muirhead's Article on Roman Law in Ency. Brit.; Ihne, I, 235.] [Footnote 3: Momm., I, 145.] [Footnote 4: Momm., loc. cit.] [Footnote 5: Brutus (App. B.C., II, 140) calls the colonists, φυλακας των πεπολεμηκοτων. (phylakas ton pepolemaekoton)] [Footnote 6: Ihne, I, 236.] [Footnote 7: Cicero, Ad Att., I,19: "Sentinam urbis exhaurire, et Italiae solitudinem frequentori posse arbitrabor."] [Footnote 8: Momm., I, 145.] [Footnote 9: Marquardt u. Momm., IV, 35-51; Momm., History of Rome, I, 108, 539; Madvigi Opuscula Academica, I, 208-305.] [Footnote 10: Marquardt u. Momm., IV, 35-51; Ihne, vols. I-V; Momm., vols. I-V; Madvigi Opus., loc. cit.] CHAPTER II. SEC. 5.—LEX CASSIA. Every year added to the difference between the patrician and plebeian, the rich and the poor; a difference which had now grown so great as to threaten seriously the very existence of the state. The most sagacious of all the plans which had been proposed to stop this evil, was that set forth by Spurius Cassius, a noble patrician now acting as consul for the third[l] time. In the year 268, he submitted to the burgesses[2] a proposal to have the public land surveyed, that portion belonging to the populus set aside and the remainder divided among the plebeians or leased for the benefit[3] of the public treasury. He thus attempted to wrest from the senate the control of the public land and, with the aid of the Latini and the plebeians, to put an end to the system of occupation.[4] The lands which he proposed to divide were solely those which the state had acquired through conquest since the general assignment by king Servius, and which it still retained.[5] This was the first measure by which it was proposed to disturb the possessors in their peaceful occupation of the state lands, and, according to Livy, such a measure had never been proposed from then to the time in which he was writing, under Augustus, without exciting the greatest disturbance.[6] Cassius might well suppose that his personal distinction and the equity and wisdom of the measure would carry it through, even amidst the storm of opposition to which it was subjected. Like many other reformers equally well meaning, he was mistaken. The citizens who occupied this land had grown rich by reason of its possessions. Some of them received it as an inheritance, and doubtless looked upon it as their property as much as the Ager Romanus. These to a man opposed the bill. The patricians arose en masse. The rich plebeians, the aristocracy of wealth, took part with them. Even the commons were dissatisfied because Spurius Cassius proposed in accordance with federal rights and equity to bestow a portion of the land upon the Latini and Hernici, their confederates and allies.[7] The bill proposed by Cassius, together with such provisions as were necessary, became a law, according to Niebuhr,[8] because the tribunes had no power to bring forward a law of any kind before the plebeian tribes obtained a voice in the legislature by the enactment of the Publilian law in 472 B.C.; so that when they afterwards made use of the agrarian law to excite the public passions it must have been one previously enacted but dishonestly set aside and, in Dionysius' account, this is the form which the commotion occasioned by it takes.[9] Though this is doubtless true, yet the law, by reason of the combined opposition, became a dead letter and the people who would have been most benefited by its enforcement joined with Cassius' enemies at the expiration of his term of office to condemn him to death. In this way does ignorance commonly reward its benefactors. This agitation aroused by Cassius, stirred the Roman Commonwealth, now more than twenty years old, to its very foundations, but it had no immediate effect upon the ager publicus. The rich patrician together with the few plebeians who had wealth enough to farm this land, still held undisputed possession. The poor plebeian still continued to shed his blood on the battle field to add to Roman territory, but no foot of it did he obtain. Wealth centralized. Pauperism increased. [Footnote 1: Dionysius, VIII, 68; "Οι δε παρα τουτων την υπατειαν παραλαβοντης ποπλιος Ουεργινιος και Σποριος Κασσιος, το τριτον τοτε αποδειχθεις υποτος, κ. τ. λ." (Dionysius, VIII, 68; "Oi de para touton taen upateian paralabontaes poplios Ouerginios kai Sporios Kassios, to triton tote apodeichtheis upotos, k. t. l.")] [Footnote 2: Dionysius, VIII, 69; Livy, II, 41, seq.] [Footnote 3: Dionysius, VIII, 81.] [Footnote 4: Dionysius, VIII, 69; Mommsen, I, 363.] [Footnote 5: Niebuhr, II, 166.] [Footnote 6: Livy, II, 41; "Tum primum lex agraria promulgata est nunquam deinde usque ad hanc memoriam sine maximus motibus rerum agitata."] [Footnote 7: Livy, II, 41; Dionysius, VIII, 69.] [Footnote 8: Niebuhr, II.] [Footnote 9: Dionysius, VIII, 81: "εκκλησιαι τε συνεγεις υπο των τοτε δημαρχων εγινοντο και απαιτησεις της υποσχεσεως." See also VIII, 87, line 25 et seq. ( Dionysius, VIII, 81: "Ekklaesiai te sunegeis hypo ton tote daemarchon eginonto kai apaitaeseis taes hyposcheseos." See also VIII, 87, line 25 et seq.)].] SEC. 6.—AGRARIAN MOVEMENTS BETWEEN 486 AND 367. Modern historians who have written upon the Roman Republic have, so far as I know, passed immediately from the consideration of the Lex Cassia to the law of Licinius Stolo. Meanwhile more than a century had passed away. Cassius died in 485, Licinius Stolo proposed his law in 376. During this century which had beheld the organization of the republic and the growth, by tardy processes, of the great plebeian body many agrarian laws were proposed and numerous divisions of the public land took place. Both Dionysius and Livy mention them. The poor success of the proposition of Cassius and the evil consequences to himself in no way checked the zeal of the tribunes. Propositions of agrarian laws followed one another with wonderful rapidity. Livy enumerates these propositions, but almost wholly without detail and without comments upon their tendencies or points of difference from one another or from the law of Cassius. As this law failed of its object by being disregarded, we may safely conclude that the most of these propositions were but a reproduction of the law of Cassius. In 484, and again in 483, the tribune proposed agrarian laws but what their nature was, Livy, who records them, does not tell us. From some vague assertions which he makes we may conclude that the point of the law was well known, and was but a repetition of that of Cassius.[1] The consul Caeso Fabius, in 484, and his brother Marcus in the following year, secured the opposition of the senate and succeeded in defeating their laws. Livy (II, 42,) mentions very briefly a new proposition brought forward by Spurius Licinius in 482. Here we are able to complete his account by reference to Dionysius,[2] who says that, in 483, a tribune named Caius Maenius had proposed an agrarian law and declared that he would oppose every levy of troops until the senate should execute the law ordaining the creation of decemvirs to determine the boundaries of the domain land and, in fine, forbid the enrolment of citizens. The senate was able through the consuls, Marcus Fabius and Valerius, the ancient colleague of Cassius, to invent a means of avoiding this difficulty. The authority of the tribunes by the old Roman law,[3] did not reach without the walls of the city, while that of the consuls was everywhere equal and only bounded by the limits of the Roman world. They moved their curule chairs and other insignia of their authority without the city walls and proceeded with the enrolments. All who refused to enroll were treated as enemies[4] of the republic. Those who were proprietors had their property confiscated, their trees cut down, and their houses burned. Those who were merely farmers saw themselves bereft of their farm-implements, their oxen and all things necessary for the cultivation of the soil. The resistance of the tribunes was powerless against this systematic oppression on the part of the patricians; the agrarian[5] law failed and the enrolment progressed. There is some difficulty in determining the facts of the law proposed by Spurius Licinius[6] of which Livy speaks. Dionysius calls this tribune, not Licinius but Σπυριος Σικιλιος (Spurios Sikilios). The Latin translation of Dionysius has the name Icilius and this has been the name adopted by Sigonius and other historians. Livy tells us that the Icilian family was at all times hostile to the patricians and mentions many tribunes by this name who were staunch defenders of the commons. In accepting this correction, therefore, it is not necessary to confound this Icilius with the one who proposed the partition of the Aventine among the plebeians. Icilius, according to both Livy and Dionysius,[7] made the same demand as the previous tribunes, i.e., that the decemvirs should be nominated for the survey and distribution of the domain lands, according to previous enactment. He further declared that he would oppose every decree of the senate either for war or the administration of the interior until the adoption and execution of his measures. Again the senate avoided the difficulty and escaped, by a trick, the execution of the law. Appius Claudius, according to Dionysius,[8] advised the senate to search within the tribunate for a remedy against itself, and to bribe a number of the colleagues of Icilius to oppose his measure. This political perfidy was adopted by the senate with the desired effect. Icilius persisted in his proposition and declared he would rather see the Etruscans masters of Rome than to suffer for a longer time the usurpation of the domain lands on the part of the possessors.[9] This somewhat circumstantial account has revealed to us that at this time it took a majority of the tribunes to veto an act of their colleague. At the time of the Gracchi the veto of a single tribune was sufficient to hinder the passage of a law, and Tiberius was for a long time thus checked by his colleague, Octavius. Then the tribunician college consisted of ten members, and it would be no very difficult thing to detach one of the number either by corruption or jealousy. But it is evident that, at the time we are considering, it took a majority of the tribunes to veto an act of a colleague; moreover, the college consisted of five members. This latter fact is seen in the statement of Livy,[10] when he mentions the opposition which four of the tribunes offered to their colleague, Pontificius, in 480. In this same case he attributes to Appius Claudius the conduct which Dionysius attributed to him in the previous year. But he causes Appius to state, in his speech favoring the corruption of certain tribunes, "that the veto of one tribune would be sufficient to defeat all the others."[11] This is contrary to the statement of Dionysius[12] and would seem improbable, for, if the opposition of one tribune was sufficient, the patricians would not have deemed it necessary to purchase four. That would be contrary to political methods. Of the two propositions of the tribunes, Icilius, in 482, and Pontificius, in 480, the results were the same. The opposition of their colleagues defeated them. But this persistent opposition rather than crushing seemed to stir up renewed attacks. We have seen the tribunes, Menius, Icilius, and Pontificius, successively fail. The next movement was led by a member of the aristocracy, Fabius Caeso,[13] consul for the third time in 477. He undertook to remove from the hands of the tribunes the terrible arm of agrarian agitation which they wielded constantly against the patricians, by causing the patricians themselves to distribute the domain lands equally among the plebeians, saying: "that those[14] persons ought to have the lands by whose blood and sweat they had been gained." His proposition was rejected with scorn by the patricians, and this attempt at reconciliation failed as all the attempts of the tribunes had. The war with Vaii which, according to Livy, now took place hindered for a while any agrarian movements; but, in 474, the tribunes Gaius Considius and Titus Genucius made a fruitless attempt at distribution, and, in 472, Dionysius speaks of a bill brought forward by Cn. Genucius which is probably the same bill. In 468, the two consuls, Valerius and Aemilius, faithfully supported the tribunes in their demand[15] for an agrarian law. The latter seems to have supported the tribunes because he was angry that the senate had refused to his father the honor of a triumph; Valerius, because he wished to conciliate the people for having taken part in the condemnation of Cassius. Dionysius, according to his custom, takes advantage of the occasion to write several long speeches here, and one of them is valuable to us. He causes the father of Aemilius to set forth in a formal speech the true character of the agrarian laws and the right of the state to again assume the la...