It is

so material a fact as the mode of his trial and execution. plain both from his account and Livy's, that they conceived the agrarian law of Cassius as referring exclusively to public land, acquired by conquest, and annexed to the Roman dominions. (143) It is admitted even by Appius (in the debate reported by Dionysius) that much of this public land is occupied by patricians, who have settled without any title, or according to the modern colonial phrase, have squatted upon it. The patrician wrongdoers are assumed to occupy large portions of land, and to cultivate them by slaves. Cassius proposes to eject these

(143) The great merits of Niebuhr in explaining and illustrating the agrarian system of Rome have been universally recognised. See his Hist. vol. ii. p. 130-165; Lect. vol. i. p. 152-4. That the Roman agrarian laws, referred to public not to private land, had however been clearly pointed out by Heyne, in his Dissertation entitled Leges Agrariæ, Pestiferæ et Execrabiles,' read in 1793 (Opuscula, vol. iv. p. 350), to which Niebuhr states that he owed his conviction of this truth; Hist. vol. ii. p. 133; and had been perceived by Hooke and other writers. It is difficult to understand how anybody who had read the account of the agrarian law of Cassius, in the history of Dionysius, and the subsequent transactions growing out of it, could have formed any other idea of its nature. No language can be more perspicuous or decisive. The true character of the Roman agrarian laws was not indeed fully comprehended by Machiavel, whose studies of Roman history seem to have been nearly confined to Livy: but his errors are exaggerated by Niebuhr. Machiavel (says he) believed simply that the agrarian laws established a limit for landed property, and assigned the rich man's surplus to the needy. He adds that the interests of every republic demand that the state should be rich, and the citizens poor: and that at Rome the laws requisite for this end seem either to have been wholly wanting in earlier times, or to have been framed imperfectly, or to have been insensibly relaxed;' ib. p. 131. In the chapter of his Discorsi, in which he discusses this subject, he says that an agrarian law consisted of two main heads: 1. that the land possessed by each citizen should not exceed a certain amount. 2. that the lands taken from the enemy should be divided among the Roman people. Aveva questa legge duoi capi principali. Per l'una si disponeva che non si potesse possedere per alcun cittadino più che tanti jugeri di terra; per l'altro che i campi di che si privavano i nimici si dividessero tra il popolo Romano. Veniva pertanto a fare di due sorte offese a' nobili, perchè quelli che possedevano più beni che non permetteva la legge (quali erano la maggior parte de' nobili) ne avevano ad esser privi, e dividendosi tralla plebe i beni de'nimici, si toglieva a quelli la via dello arrichire;' i. 37. It appears therefore that, according to Machiavel's view, one of the main objects of the agrarian laws was the division of the conquered lands among the plebeians. His supposition that the limit of 500 acres imposed by the Licinian law extended to private property, is held by Niebuhr to be erroneous; but his opinion on this point is still maintained by creditable and learned writers. See Mr. Long's Essays in the Classical Museum, vol. ii. p. 254, 307; Prof. Puchta's Answer, vol. iii. p. 67, and Mr. Long's Reply, ìb. p. 78.

squatters, and to divide the land in small portions among the poorer citizens, who it was presumed would cultivate them by their own labour. Appius, on the other hand, though concurring in the proposal for the dispossession of the patrician squatters, recommends a policy similar to that which was propounded by Mr. Wakefield for the disposal of waste lands in colonies, and is now the law of the Australian settlements; he advises that the state, instead of dividing the land gratuitously, should sell it or let it on lease, and thus make a fund to be applied to military purposes This plan, with some modifications, is represented by Dionysius as having been embodied in the decree of the Senate. The arguments placed in the mouth both of Appius and Sempronius show that public land is alone in question; and that the agrarian law of Cassius was not understood to apply to private property, held by a good title, more than a colonial land act would now be understood as referring to sales by private proprietors. But in the uncertainty which exists. respecting the accounts of these times, we are unable to judge of the grounds on which the narrative may rest: thus much however is clear, that the plan of selling or letting the public lands of Rome, and of raising a revenue to the state from this source, instead of granting them gratuitously, had been the subject of practical discussion before the time of Dionysius. If this plan had been early adopted, and steadily adhered to, it would probably have mitigated the violence of those intestine troubles, which (as Livy says on this occasion) continued, throughout the whole duration of the Republic, to accompany the proposal of an agrarian law. (14) The payment of a price for the land would have diminished the number and eagerness of the competitors; and the profit accruing to the state would have given to the tax-paying classes an interest in maintaining the system. The real opposition to an agrarian law arose from those who, by occupying the unappropriated land of the state,

(144) Tunc primum lex agraria promulgata est; nunquam deinde usque ad hanc memoriam sine maximis motibus rerum agitata; Livy, ii. 41.

and employing their capital and slaves in its cultivation, had acquired a possessory right to it, to which the greater deference would be shown in antiquity, in proportion as the terms of prescription recognised by law were shorter than in modern times.(145) Even at present, however, the ejectment of encroachers upon a common by the lord of the manor, and of squatters by a colonial government, when conducted on a large scale, is a measure met with great resistance, and involving much difficulty.

§ 27 An account of the burning of nine tribunes is connected with this period, and with Cassius: for P. Mucius, one of the tribunes of the plebs, is said to have inflicted this punishment upon his nine colleagues, who, at the instigation of Sp. Cassius, offered some improper opposition to the subrogation of magistrates. (146) A mutilated passage of Festus, which probably refers to the same event, appears, so far as it can be restored, to describe some military tribunes in the army of Sicinius, the consul of the year 487 B.C., as the subjects of this punishment,

(145) The division of unoccupied public land is distinguished from the resumption of public land wrongfully occupied by patricians, in a note against Vertot in Hooke's History, b. ii. c. 19. Hooke lays it down that the division admitted of no difficulty, and he argues that the length of possession had not been sufficient to render the resumption unjust.

(146) Idem sibi tam licere P. Mucius tribunus plebis quam senatui et populo Romano credidit, qui omnes collegas suos, qui duce Sp. Cassio id egerant, ut, magistratibus non subrogatis, communis libertas in dubium vocaretur, vivos cremavit. Val. Max. vi. 3, 2. Dio Cass. xx. refers to the same transaction : ἐννέα γάρ ποτε δήμαρχοι πυρὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου ἐδόθησαν. Com. pare Zon. vii. 17. Niebuhr, vol. ii. p. 416, inclines to the opinion that the passages of Valerius, Dio, and Cassius, all refer to the same event.

The following stipulation, which Diodorus states to have formed part of the compact between the plebeians and patricians, under the decemvirate at the second secession (449 B.C.), appears to be a general expression of the occurrence described by Valerius Maximus: ἐν δὲ ταῖς ὁμολογίαις προσέκειτο, τοῖς ἄρξασι δημάρχοις τὸν ἐνιαυτὸν ἀντικαθιστάναι πάλιν δημάρχους τοὺς ἴσους, ἢ τοῦτο μὴ πράξαντας, ζῶντας κατακαυθῆναι, xii. 25. This stipulation is probably borrowed from the Duilian law, in Livy, iii. 55: qui plebem sine tribunis reliquisset-tergo ac capite puniretur. Livy states that in the negotiation which took place at the second secession, the plebeians demanded that the decemvirs should be given up, in order that they might be burnt alive. De decemvirorum modo supplicio atrox postulatum fuit. Dedi quippe eos æquum censebant, vivosque igni concrematuros minabantur;' iii. 53.

The

and not to connect the occurrence with Cassius.(147) event is not mentioned either by Dionysius or Livy, and we are ignorant on what authority it is reported. Their silence as to so remarkable an incident raises a presumption that it was not mentioned by the historians whose writings they consulted.

§ 28 In the next years there are hostilities against the Veientes, Volscians, and Equians, which are not similarly represented by the two historians. The Volscians, so lately described by Dionysius as reduced to subjection by the Romans, now, according to him, contend with them on equal terms. Livy on the other hand says that they were defeated in a successful battle.(148) The policy of the patricians in fomenting external wars, in order to appease internal discords, is again adverted to. (149) On the other hand, the tribunes exert their influence to prevent the people from enrolling themselves as soldiers, so long as the agrarian decree remains unexecuted. Dionysius mentions a contrivance adopted by the consuls with success on this occasion, for overcoming the resistance of the tribunes. They placed their chairs of state in the plain outside the city, and therefore beyond the limits of the tribunician power, and summoned the

(147) See Festus, p. 174, with Müller's note, p. 389. The restoration of Niebuhr, Hist. vol. îì. p. 127, is considered by Müller to be inadmissible, who proposes a different one. The conjectures of Dr. Arnold may be seen in his History, vol. i. p. 241. He remarks that the whole period between the first institution of the tribuneship, and the death of Cassius, is one of the greatest obscurity.'

Kempf, in his edition of Valerius Maximus, has an Excursus on this subject, p. 754-6, in which he discredits the account of Valerius Maximus, and rejects Niebuhr's restoration of Festus, but approves of that adopted by Müller. He remarks justly that the account of nine tribunes being burnt alive by their colleague in the time of Sp. Cassius, who was put to death in 485 B.C. is not consistent with our accounts of the tribunate, which represent the number of tribunes to have been raised to ten, as late as the year 457 B.C. The story of burning the nine tribunes is doubted by Mr. Newman; Class. Mus. vol. vi. p. 212.

(148) Dion. Hal. viii. 82-89. Compare the account of the campaign of Emilius with Livy's words: Uno animo patres ac plebes rebellantes Volscos et quos, duce Emilio, prosperâ pugnâ vicere; ii. 42.

(149) Dion. Hal. viii. 83, enlarges on this topic. Livy, ib., merely says: Bello deinde civiles discordiæ intermissæ. Zonaras has a similar statement with respect to the agrarian law at this period: οἱ γὰρ δυνατοὶ μὴ ἄλλως κατέχειν αὐτοὺς δυνάμενοι, πολέμους ἐκ πολέμων ἐξεπίτηδες ἐκίνουν, ἵν αὐτοῖς ἀσχολούμενοι μηδὲν περὶ τῆς γῆς πολυπραγμονῶσι, vii. 17.

citizens before them. Those who refused to serve were fined, and the fine was levied on their lands. (150) If this easy mode of evading the resistance of the tribunes could be successfully used in this year, it is difficult to understand why it was not resorted to on other occasions. Livy here describes a source of popular discontent, which often recurs in subsequent years: namely, that the consuls cheated the soldiers of their booty, by selling it for the benefit of the state, instead of dividing it among them.(151) Alarming prodigies became frequent at this time in Rome, and were interpreted to signify that there was some irregularity in the performance of the sacred rites: but they ceased upon the punishment of a vestal virgin, who was immured for unchastity, and her two accomplices were beheaded. (152)

§ 29 We now read of a struggle at the elections between the patricians and plebeians, with respect to the choice of consuls. Although the vote is taken in the comitia centuriata, the patrician influence has not a decisive preponderance:(153) in the year 482 B.C. the disputes lead to an interregnum, and in this and the following year a compromise is effected, by selecting one consul, who though himself necessarily a patrician, entertains moderate opinions, and is well inclined to the plebeian party. (154)

(150) Dion. Hal. viii. 87.

(151) ii. 42. The construction which Niebuhr, Hist. vol. ii. p. 177, puts on this passage is quite arbitrary, and rests on an unproved hypothesis of his own.

(152) Dion. Hal. viii. 89, calls her Opimia; Livy, ii. 42, Oppia. Their accounts of the interpretation of the prodigies, and of their cessation at her death, agree.

(153) Dion. Hal. viii. 90.

(154) Ib. ix. 1. Niebuhr supposes a change in the mode of electing the consuls to have been made in the year of K. Fabius and Æmilius (484 B.C.) by which the election was transferred from the centuries to the Senate and the curiæ, and a mere right of confirmation reserved to the former (Hist. vol. ii. p. 178). He likewise supposes that in a later year a compromise was effected, by which the centuries elected one consul and the Senate the other (ib. 188). These suppositions rest on nothing but forced constructions of passages, by which meanings unknown to their authors are elicited. They are properly rejected by Goettling, Röm. Staatsverf. p. 308; Becker, ii. 2, p. 93, and Newman, Class. Mus. vol. vi. p. 119-126, who has given an excellent exposure of Niebuhr's sophisms. The liberty which Niebuhr assumes of taking duos and populus, for the patricians as opposed to the plebeians, often enables him to extract a meaning the very reverse of that