The other declared to be unjustly occupied by patricians. consul condemned his bounty to the Hernicans, in restoring a third part of their land, and to the Latins, in putting them on an equal footing with the Romans in the division. He threw suspicion on the motives of Cassius; and accused him of monarchical designs; but declared his willingness to agree to the division of land, provided that none but Romans were benefited. (128) In order to remove the imputation of benefiting the Latins equally with his own citizens, Cassius proposes that the money obtained by the sale of the Sicilian wheat should be repaid.(129) This proposal appears to the people too manifestly prompted by a mere desire of popularity. He was believed to be aiming at regal power: and as soon as his term of office had expired, he was tried, condemned, and executed. The most credible account is that he was accused of a capital offence by the quæstors, Kaso Fabius and L. Valerius, and condemned by the people and that his house was demolished—the site of which is in front of the temple of Tellus. Another account is that he was put to death by his father-who consecrated his peculium; and that a statue was erected by means of it, with the inscription, 'Ex Cassiâ familiâ datum.' By the latter explanation, Livy obviates the objection of Dionysius to the story of the execution by the father; for the son could have a peculium (like a slave) in his father's lifetime.(130) He does not however representation of it; vol. i. p. 153. Compare Niebuhr, ib. p. 167. Livy's statement however is quite clear: it is inconsistent with that of Dionysius; and we have no reason for preferring one to the other. (128) In this statement as to the course taken by Virginius, Livy agrees exactly with Dionysius: see the answer to Rabuleius, above, p. 130. Livy represents Virginius as warning the people that Cassius will play the part of Coriolanus over again. (129) Both historians state that the case of Coriolanus was referred to, and that Virginius proposed to return the price of the Sicilian wheat to the purchasers. Both these circumstances are inconsistent with the hypothesis of Niebuhr, which transfers the story of Coriolanus and the present of Sicilian corn to a subsequent date. (130) See Mr. Long's art. on patria potestas in Dr. Smith's Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Ant. Compare Juv. xvi. 51-4. Solis præterea testandi militibus jus Vivo patre datur. Nam quæ sunt parta labore attempt to reconcile with it the demolition of the house, and the preservation of the open area near the temple of Tellus. Cicero speaks of the treasonable designs of Cassius, in aiming at monarchical power, (131) and says that he was executed for this cause. His account is, that Cassius was accused by the quæstor, and that his father, being satisfied of his guilt, the people making no resistance,-put him to death. (132) He likewise states that the house of Cassius was demolished, and the temple of Tellus built on its site. (133) Valerius Maximus twice mentions the execution of Cassius for the same offence: but in one place he ascribes it to the father,(184) in the other to the Senate and people:(135) connecting with the former the consecration of the peculium, with the latter the demolition of the house, and the erection of the temple on its site. Florus and Pliny state that Cassius was executed by his father.(136) Piso, a contemporary, related that in the year 158 B.C. the statue of Sp. Cassius who had aimed at regal power, formerly erected by himself in the temple of Tellus, was melted down by the censors. (137) It seems impossible to reconcile this account with the statements respecting the levelling of his house; for this statue would doubtless have been removed at the same time. According to Pliny, the earliest brazen statue at Rome was that made from the peculium of Cassius, and dedicated to Ceres. (138) Dio Cassius says that Cassius, though the benefactor of the people, was put to death by them, with their accustomed fickleness, from jealousy of his power. (139) The opinion advanced by (131) Phil. ii. 44; de Amic. 11. (132) De Rep. ii. 35. (133) Pro domo suâ, 38. (134) v. 8, 2. In this passage he is described as having introduced his agrarian law as a tribunus plebis. (135) vi. 3, 1. (136) Florus, i. 26; Plin. N. H. xxxiv. 9. (137) Ap. Plin. H. N. xxxiv. 14. (138) N. H. xxxiv. 9. (139) Dio Cass. xix. His meaning is misrepresented by Niebuhr, Hist. vol. ii. p. 170. He does not mean to accuse the patricians of his death. Zonaras makes no mention of Cassius; see vii. 17. Cicero explains the conduct of the people by saying that they acquiesced in the execution of Cassius by his father, and did not interfere to prevent it. Hooke is, that 'Cassius was neither publicly nor privately convicted of aiming at the tyranny, but was murdered by the nobles either secretly, or by a mob which they excited to do it, in revenge for his honest attempt to strip them of their usurpations.'(140) Niebuhr takes a similar view as to the probable cause of the death of Cassius; but thinks that in aiming at monarchical power he was influenced by patriotic motives, and that he was the most remarkable man of this period. (1) When we consider the uncertainty which often prevails as to the motives and merit of state criminals, even in times of cotemporary history, of indictments and public trials, of short-hand writers, printing, and newspapers; it seems impossible to form any well-grounded judgment respecting the conduct of Cassius, as to whom facts of such public notoriety as the mode of his trial and execution are differently reported. It is incredible that his contemporaries should not have known whether he was tried and condemned by the people, or was privately executed by his father, after an examination before the Senate. The references to the space in front of the temple of Tellus, or to the site of the temple (for the statements differ), and to the brazen statue of Cassius (as to which there are two wholly inconsistent accounts), wear the appearance of monumental legends: the inscription 'ex Cassià familiâ datum' may have been ancient and genuine; but it proves nothing in support of the traditionary story. The discussions and propositions respecting the agrarian law of Cassius are set out by Dionysius with a minuteness and fulness which suggests the idea that a Roman Hansard or Annual Register for the year 486 B.C. was lying open before him. (142) Yet this painstaking historian was unable to ascertain (140) Rom. Hist. b. ii. c. 14. (141) Ib. p. 170-1; Lect. vol. i. p. 150. Dr. Arnold adopts Niebuhr's view; ib. p. 163. Aristotle, Pol. v. 5 and 10, states that almost all the Greek despots acquired their power by being demagogues-he makes this remark particularly with respect to those of ancient times. (142) One cannot help doubting, whether, in all that is said of the agrarian law of Cassius, there is a single point that comes from any other source, than the desire of the later writers to give some account of so important a measure;' Niebuhr, Hist. vol. ii. p. 166. 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, ib. 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.(144) 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, deinde usque (144) Tunc primum lex agraria promulgata est; nunquam ad hanc memoriam sine maximis motibus rerum agitata; Livy, ii, 41. |