of the early agrarian laws do not explain how far they went in disturbing long-continued possession. No instance is mentioned of patricians being ejected from their encroachments on a large scale though they were threatened with such a measure by Tib. Gracchus. Ten years after the passing of the Licinian law (357 B.C.) Licinius was himself condemned under his own law by M. Popilius Lænas (apparently in virtue of his official authority), (69) to a fine of 10,000 asses, for holding, together with his son, 1000 jugera. Licinius had emancipated his son, in order to enable him to hold land independently of himself; but this emancipation was treated as colourable and fraudulent, and the occupation of the son was considered as being in law the occupation of the father.(7) We have no reason for ques (69) Plutarch says that the first agrarian law proposed by Tib. Gracchus contained a provision for the compensation of occupiers ejected from their lands; c. 9; but that, irritated by the opposition of the rich, he altered this provision, and afterwards proposed the simple ejection of all persons whose occupation was contrary to the existing laws; c. 10. (Niebuhr thinks that the plan of compensation ought to have been adopted; Lect. vol. ii. p. 282.) Appian, moreover, describes Tib. Gracchus as attempting to prevail upon the rich to accept his law, by reminding them that it will secure their title to 500 jugera for themselves, and 250 for each son, and that they will obtain this amount of land without payment as an equivalent for their expenditure; i. 11. The complaints of the old possessors whom it was proposed to eject are fully set out by Appian, c. 10, as well as the practical difficulties as to identifying the land, ascertaining the boundaries of estates, examining titles, &c., which attended the operations of the commissioners appointed under the law; c. 18. In the latter chapter, he speaks of a proclamation permitting any person to cultivate the public undivided land. Appian adds, that not long after the death of C. Gracchus, a law was passed, by which the prohibition to alienate the allotments was repealed, and that they speedily fell, either by purchase or violence, into the hands of the rich. He likewise states that the law of Sp. Thorius the tribune, which followed soon after (about 108 B.C.) prohibited all divisions of public land, and confirmed the actual holders in their possession, but it imposed a tax upon them, and provided that the proceeds of it should be distributed among the poor; which (says Appian) was a relief to the poor, but no encouragement to population; c. 27. (70) Livy, vii. 16; Dion. Hal. xiv. 22; Val. Max. viii. 6, § 3; Plin. N. H. xviii. 4; Columella, i. 3; Victor, de Vir. Ill. 20; Plut. Cam. 39. It is not stated that the land held by Licinius was public land, but the word possideo is used by Livy. The words of Livy imply that Popilius Lænas imposed the fine of his own authority; Valerius Maximus, however, says that he was the accuser of Licinius, and Dionysius states that he was condemned by the people. The latter adds a saying of Licinius, that the tioning the legality of this decision; but it seems highly probable that the proceeding was vindictive. This example shows that the possession of large estates was not at this time confined to the patricians. Whether Licinius, in addition to the payment of a fine, was deprived of all land in excess of the legal maximum, we are not informed. More than half a century later (298 B.C.), we hear of the ædiles taking measures for enforcing this law, by laying several informations against the offenders, nearly all of which were successful.(1) We now lose sight of the agrarian law of Licinius for more than a century and a half, when it is re-enacted with a view to its practical reinforcement, on the proposal of Tiberius Gracchus (133 B.C.). (72) The history of the times of the Gracchi, as related by Plutarch and Appian, was derived from contemporary writers, and is entitled to full credit. (73) Their account however of the ancient Licinian law, which both the Gracchii revived, people was as savage as a wild beast, for it did not spare even those who fed it. M. Popilius Lænas was a plebeian; see Livy, vii. 23. The legality of the sentence on Licinius Stolo is not questioned by Niebuhr, Hist. vol. iii. p. 52; but the prosecution is regarded as vindictive by Dr. Arnold; vol. ii. p. 70. (71) Eo anno plerisque dies dicta ab ædilibus, quia plus, quam quod lege finitum erat, agri possiderent; nec quisquam ferme est purgatus, vinculumque ingens immodica cupiditatis injectum est; Livy, x. 13. The story told by Dion. Hal. xvi. 15, of the consul L. Postumius Megellus having in 291 B.C. employed 2000 of his soldiers in clearing away wood on his estate, without allowing them the use of iron, is used by Niebuhr, Hist. vol. iii. p. 413, as a proof that the Licinian law was violated by an occupation exceeding 500 jugera. Dionysius does not say that Postumius was fined for this act, but it is stated by Livy, Epit. xi. See Niebuhr, Lect. vol. ii. p. 277. A division of the Picentine territory among the plebs, carried by C. Flaminius, the tribune, in 232 B.C., is regarded by Polybius as the main cause of the subsequent deterioration of the people. His language seems to imply a disapprobation of the policy of dividing public land among the poor; ii. 21. (72) Plutarch, Tib. Gracch. 8, says, that C. Lælius attempted to revive the policy of the Licinian law, but that he desisted from his attempt in consequence of the opposition of the great men and that from his prudence in this matter he earned his appellation of Sapiens. He was tribune in 151 B.C., which is probably the date of this attempt. (73) It is much to be regretted that the works of the contemporary historians of this period have perished: but their writings doubtless served as the foundation of the accounts given by Appian and Plutarch. The character of those accounts in Niebuhr, Lect. vol. ii. p. 276, is too unfavourable. had not the same advantage, and was drawn from less trustworthy sources. (74) Appian describes this law as originating in circumstances which could not have begun to exist at the time when it was passed, and of which no trace occurs in the narrative of Livy. The Romans, he says, seeing that the large estates held by single proprietors, and cultivated by slave labour, prevented them from obtaining freemen from the allies to serve in their armies, were desirous of providing a remedy for this evil. They perceived however that it was not easy, nor altogether just, to deprive so many persons of lands held for so long a time, which they had cultivated, and upon which they had erected buildings: it was therefore with reluctance that, upon the proposal of the tribunes, they at length enacted that no person should hold more than 500 jugera of the public land, nor keep more than 100 of the larger or 500 of the smaller animals ;(75) besides which it was ordered that there should be on each estate a fixed number of freemen, who might watch what happened, and report it to the authorities. They then confirmed the law with an oath, and imposed penalties for its violation; thinking that all the land beyond the appointed limit would in a short time be sold to the poor. But no regard was paid either to the law, or to the oaths;(76) those who affected to observe it, made fictitious conveyances to their kinsmen, who held the land merely as trustees, while the great majority set the law at open defiance. This state of things continued until the time of Tib. Gracchus, who revived the law with respect to the 500 jugera; but allowed each son to hold 250 jugera, which the old enactment did not permit. He further provided that all the land in (74) The interval between the passing of the Licinian rogations, and the agrarian law of Tiberius Gracchus, was 234 years (367 and 133 B.C.) : so that the writers contemporary with the Gracchi could have had no certain oral tradition of the circumstances which led to the agrarian measure of Licinius, and their knowledge of the subject was probably very imperfect and conjectural. (75) By the larger animals we must understand cattle, asses, and mules (for horses were not considered by the ancients an agricultural animal); and by the smaller, sheep and goats. (76) We ought probably to read οὔτε τοῦ νόμου οὔτε τῶν ὅρκων. excess of this limit should be divided among the poor, by three commissioners, to be annually elected for the purpose, and he prohibited the grantees of the state from selling their allotments. It was this latter provision, Appian remarks, which caused the greatest consternation among the rich; because the division by public authority prevented them from setting the law at nought as they had previously done; and they were not even permitted to buy the allotments, when the grantee was willing to sell. (7) Plutarch, in his life of Tiberius Gracchus, also traces the origin of the agrarian law of Licinius; but his account differs from that of Appian. According to his statement, the Romans either sold the land which they acquired in war, or retained it as public property, and assigned it to the poorer citizens, upon payment of a moderate rent. The rich however, by offering higher rents to the state, were able to expel the poor from their holdings; and in order to prevent this abuse, a law was made limiting the occupation of land to 500 jugera. For a short time this enactment restrained the greediness of the rich, and protected the poor in the occupation of the allotments which they rented of the state. But at last, the tenancies of the poor passed into the hands of their rich neighbours, who at first held them under fictitious names, and at last openly appeared as possessing the real interest in the soil; so that the small occupiers were everywhere ejected.(78) Neither Appian nor Plutarch distinctly states that the law imposing the limit of 500 jugera, revived and amended by Tib. Gracchus, was the law of Licinius. They are however identified by Velleius, (79) and no reasonable doubt of their (77) Appian, Bell. Civ. i. 8 and 9. (78) Tib. Gracch. 8. (79) [C. Gracchus] dividebat agros, vetabat quemquam civem plus D. jugeribus habere, quod aliquando lege Liciniâ cautum erat; ii. 6. All certain knowledge of the Licinian period must have been extinct in the time of the Gracchi, so far as it depended on memory and oral tradition; the interval (as we have already stated) being 234 years. Beaufort, République Romaine, vol. vi. p. 344, says of the agrarian law of Licinius: C'étoit la loi la plus salutaire, la plus utile, et la plus nécessaire à la république. Ce fut cette même loi que les Gracques voulurent remettre en identity can exist. The two writers differ as to the precise circumstances in which the Licinian law originated. They agree however in stating that it was intended to increase the number of small free cultivators, who could serve in the armies, and to repress the system of large occupations cultivated by slave labour. Livy, on the other hand, treats it as a measure for promoting the private interests of the plebeians, by securing to them the means of existence: he does not advert to the substitution of slave for free labour, and the consequent diminution of the population fitted for military service. (5) Moreover, his account of the manner in which the Licinian rogations were carried does not at all agree with the statement of Appian, that the people, reluctantly and with hesitation, after a long delay, imposed the limit of 500 jugera as a necessary remedy for a crying evil. The extension of the system of large plantations, cultivated by slaves, over the centre and south of Italy, which Appian and Plutarch contemplate, had not come into existence at the passing of the Licinian laws, only twenty-three years after the capture of the city, and before Rome had carried her vigueur; mais si Licinius et Sextus essuyèrent de si rudes combats pour la faire recevoir, que ne devoit-il pas coûter aux Gracques, et que ne leur en coûta-t-il pas en effet, pour avoir entrepris de la remettre en vigueur?' (80) The change in question is mentioned by Livy as having taken place in his own time-over the country once occupied by the Volscians and Equians. Aut innumerabilem multitudinem liberorum capitum in eis fuisse locis, quæ nunc, vix seminario exiguo militum relicto, servitia Romana ab solitudine vindicant;' vi. 12. Compare Appian, B. C. i. 7, 10 and 11, where it is clearly shown that the main object of the agrarian law of Tib. Gracchus was to change the system of cultivation in Italy, by substituting freemen for slaves. His policy (says Appian) was to increase not wealth, but population. Γράκχῳ δ' ὁ μὲν νοῦς τοῦ βουλεύματος ἦν οὐκ ἐς Evπорíav å' iç evavdpíav, i. 11. See likewise the authentic account of the circumstances which first suggested this law to Tib. Gracchus, taken from a work of his brother Caius; Plut. Tib. Gracch. 8. The policy of Gracchus was to create a population of auroupyoi (see above, vol. i. p. 418, n. 31), of small proprietors, cultivating their land without slave labour, leading a hardy life, and ready to serve in the legions when required for military purposes: such a population as that described by Virgil in the following verses: At patiens operum parvoque assueta juventus |