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
" 2. QUIRITARIAN OWNERSHIP
" 3. AGER PUBLICUS
" 4. ROMAN COLONIES
CHAPTER II.
Sec. 5. LEX CASSIA
" 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
" 8. AGRARIAN MOVEMENTS BETWEEN 367 AND 133
(a) Extension of Territory by conquest between 367 and 133
(b) Colonies Founded between 367 and 133
Sec. 9. LATIFUNDIA
" 10. INFLUENCE OF SLAVERY
" 11. LEX SEMPRONIA TIBERIANA
" 12. LEX SEMPRONIA GAIANA
CHAPTER III.
Sec.13. LEX THORIA
" 14. AGRARIAN MOVEMENTS BETWEEN 111 AND 86
" 15. EFFECT OF THE SULLAN REVOLUTION
" 16. AGRARIAN MOVEMENTS BETWEEN 86 AND 59
" 17. LEX JULIA AGRARIA
" 18. DISTRIBUTION OF LAND AFTER THE CIVIL WAR BETWEEN CÆSAR AND POMPEY
" 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
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._, [Greek: 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 Signia. | Latium. | ? | Livy, 1, 56; Dionys., 4, 63.
2 Cerceii. | " | ? | Id.
3 Suessa Pometia.| " | ? | Livy, 2, 16.
4 Cora. | " | ? | Livy, 2, 16.
5 Velitrae. | " | 494 | Livy, 2, 30, 31 ; Dionys.,
| | | 6, 42, 43.
6 Norba. | " | 492 | Livy, 2, 34; Dionys , 7, 13.
7 Antium. | " | 467 | " 3, 1; " 9, 59.
8 Ardea. | " | 442 | " 4, 11; Diodor., 12,34.
9 Satricum. | " | 385 | " 6, 14.
10 Sutrum. | Etruria. | 383 | Vell., 1, 14.
11 Nepete. | " | 383 | Livy, 6, 21; Vell.
12 Setia. | Latium. | 382 | Vell., 1,14; Livy, 6, 30.
13 Cales. | Campania. | 334 | " 1,14; " 8,16.
14 Fregellae. | Latium. | 328 | Livy, 8, 22.
15 Luceria. | Apulia. | 314 | " Epit., 60.
16 Suessa. | | 313 | " 9, 28.
17 Pontiae. | Isle of Latium.| 313 | " 9, 28.
18 Saticula. | Samnium. | 313 | " 9, 22; Vell., 1, 14;
| | | Festus, p. 340.
19 Interamna | | |
Lirinas. | Latium. | 312 | Livy, 9, 28; Vell, 1, 14;
| | | Diodor., 19, 105.
20 Sora. | " | 303 | Livy, 10, 1; Vell., 1, 14.
21 Alba. | " | 303 | " 10, 1; " 1, 14.
22 Narnia. | Umbria. | 299 | " 10, 10.
23 Carseola. | Latium. | 298 | " 10, 13.
24 Venusia. | Apulia. | 291 | Vell., 1, 14; Dionys. Ex.,
| | | 2335.
25 Hatria. | Picenum. | 289 | Livy, Epit., 11.
26 Cosa. | Campania. | 273 | " " 14; Vell., 1, 14.
27 Paestum. | Lucania. | 273 | Id. Id.
28 Ariminum. | | 268 | Vell., 1, 14; L. Epit., 15;
| | | Eutrop., 2, 16.
29 Beneventum. | Samnium. | 268 | Vell., 1, 14; L. Epit., 15;
| | | Eutrop., 2, 16.
30 Firmum. | Picenum. | 264 | Vell., 1, 14.
31 Aesernia. | Samnium. | 263 | " 1, 14; L. Epit., 16.
32 Brundisium. | Calabria. | 244 | " 1, 14; " 19.
33 Spoletium. | Umbria. | 241 | " 1, 14; " 20.
34 Cremona. | Gallia Cis. | 218 | Tacitus, _Hist_., 3,35.
35 Placentia. | " " | 218 | L. Epit., 20; Polyb., 3, 40;
| | | V. 1, 14, 8.
36 Copia. | Lucania. | 193 | Livy, 34, 53.
37 Valentia. | Bruttii. | 192 | " 34, 40; 35,40.
38 Bononia. | Gallia Cis. | 189 | " 37, 57; Vell., 1, 15.
39 Aquileia. | Gallia Trans. | 181 | " 40, 34; " "
------------------+----------------+-------+-------------------------------
_Table of Civic Colonies in Italy._
------------------+----------------+-------+-------------------------------
COLONIES. | LOCATION. | B.C. | AUTHORITY.
------------------+----------------+-------+-------------------------------
1 Ostea. | Latium. | 418 | Livy, 1, 33; Dionys., 3, 44;
| | | Polyb., 6, 29; Cic. de R.R.,
| | | 2, 18, 33.
2 Labici. | " | 418 | Livy, 4, 47, 7.
3 Antium. | " | 338 | " 8, 14.
4 Auxur. | " | 329 | " 8, 21; 27, 38; Vell. 1, 14.
5 Minturnae. | Campania. | 296 | Livy, 10, 21.
6 Sinuessa. | " | 296 | " 10, 21; 27, 38.
7 Sena Gallica. | Umbria. | 283 | " Epit., 11; Vell., 1, 14, 8.
8 Castrum Novum. | Picenum. | 283 | Livy, Epit., 11; Vell.,1,14,8.
9 Aesium. |Umbria. | 247 | Vell., 1, 14, 8.
10 Alsium. | Etruria. | 247 | " 1, 14, 8; L. Epit., 19;
| | | L., 36, 3.
11 Fregena. | " | 245 | Livy, 36, 3.
12 Pyrgi. | " | 191 | " "
13 Puteoli. | Campania. | 194 | " 34, 45.
14 Volturnum. | " | 194 | Id.
15 Liturnum. | " | 194 | Id.
16 Salernum. | " | 194 | Id.
17 Buxentum. | Lucania. | 194 | Livy, 34, 45.
18 Sipontum. | Apulia. | 194 | Id.
19 Tempsa. | Bruttii. | 194 | Id.
20 Croton. | " | 194 | Id.
21 Potentia. | Picenum. | 184 | Livy, 39, 44.
22 Pisaurum. | Umbria. | 184 | " " "
23 Parma. | Gallia Cis. | 183 | " " 55.
24 Mutina. | Gallia Cis. | 183 | Livy, 39, 55.
25 Saturnia. | Etruria. | 183 | " " "
26 Graviscae. | " | 181 | " 40, 39.
27 Luna. | " | 180 | " 41, 13.
28 Auximum. | Picenum. | 157 | Vell., 1, 15, 3.
29 Fabrateria. | Latium. | 124 | " 1, 15, 4.
30 Minervia. | Bruttii. | 122 | " 1, 15, 4; Appian B.C.,
| | | 2, 23.
31 Neptunia. | Iapygia. | 122 | Id.
32 Dertona. | Liguria. | 100 | Vell., 1, 15, 5.
33 Eporedia. | Gallia Trans. | 100 | " " "
34 Narbo Martius. | " Narbo. | 118 | Mommsen. (sic.)
------------------+----------------+-------+-------------------------------
[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, [Greek:
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_.]