Part 21 (1/2)

[328] App. _Bell. Civ_. i. 9 [Greek: _esemnologaese peri tou Italikou genous_]. The expression suggests the further question whether Gracchus intended Italians, as well as Romans, to benefit by his law. On this question see p. 115. But, whatever our opinion on this point, the widening of the issue by an appeal to Italian interests was natural, if not inevitable.

[329] App. l.c.

[330] Plut. _Ti. Gracch_. 9.

[331] App. _Bell. Civ_. i. 9; cf. Plut. _Ti. Gracch_. 8.

[332] The most respectable of the authorities for the Licinian law having dealt with the land question is Varro (_R.R_. 1. 2. 9 Stolonis illa lex, quae vetat plus D jugera habere civem R). A similar account is found in many other authors (Liv. vi. 35; Vellei. ii. 6; Plut. _Cam_.

39; Gell. vi. 3. 40; Val. Max. viii. 6. 3). A variant in the maximum amount permitted to a single holder is given by [Victor] _de Vir. Ill_.

20 [(Licinius Stolo) legem scivit, ne cui plebeio plus centum jugera agri habere liceret]; or the word ”plebeio,” if not a mistake, may suggest another clause in the supposed law.

[333] Cato ap. Gell. vi. (vii.) 3. 37. Cato asks whether any enactment punishes _intent_ (for the Rhodians were charged with having _intended_ hostility to Rome), and points his argument by the following _reductio ad absurdum_ of legislation conceived in this spirit, Si quis plus quingenta jugera habere voluerit, tanta poena esto: si quis majorem pecuum numerum habere voluerit, tantum d.a.m.nas esto.

[334] On this subject see Niese _Das sogenannte Licinisch-s.e.xtische Ackergesetz_ (Hermes xxiii. 1888), Soltau _Das Aechtheit des licinischen Ackergesetzes von_ 367 v. Chr. (Hermes x.x.x. 1895).

[335] Mommsen in C.I.L. i. pp. 75 ff.

[336] Cic. _de Leg. Agr_. ii. 29. 81 Nec duo Gracchi, qui de plebis Romanae commodis plurimum cogitaverunt, nec L. Sulla ... agrum Campanum attingere ausus est. Cf. i. 7. 21.

[337] Exemptions were specified in the agrarian law of C. Gracchus, which must have appeared in that of his elder brother. They are noticed in the extant _Lex agraria_ (C.I.L. 1. n. 200; Bruns _Fontes_ 1. 3.

11) l. 6 Extra eum agrum, quei ager ex lege plebive scito, quod C.

Semp.r.o.nius Ti. f. tr. pl. rog(avit), exceptum cavitumve est nei divideretur.... The law of C. Gracchus is here mentioned as being the later enactment. Cicero, when he writes (_ad Att_. 1. 19. 4) of his own att.i.tude to the Flavian agrarian law of 60 B.C. Liberabam agrum eum, qui P. Mucio L. Calpurnio consulibus publicus fuisset, is probably referring to land that, public in 133 B.C., still remained public in his own day.

[338] See Voigt _Ueber die staatsrechtliche Possessio und den Ager Compascuus_ p. 229.

[339] App. _Bell. Civ_. 1. 9 [Greek: _anekainize ton nomon maedena ton pentakosion plethron pleon hechein, paisi d' auton hyper ton palaion nomon proset.i.thei ta haemisea touton_]. Liv. _Ep_. lviii. Ne quis ex publico agro plus quam mille jugera possideret, cf. [Victor] _de Vir.

Ill_. 64. The conclusion stated in the text, which is gained by a combination of these pa.s.sages, is, however, somewhat hazardous.

[340] App, _Bell, Civ_. 1. 11 [Greek: _ekeleue tous plousious ... mae, en ho peri mikron diapherontai, ton pleonon hyperidein, misthon hama taes peponaemenaes exergasias autarkae pheromenous taen exaireton aneu timaes ktaesin es aei bebaion hekasto pentakosion plethron, kai paisin, ois eisi paides, ekasto kai touton ta haemisea_]. If [Greek: _aneu timaes_] means ”without paying for it,” the phrase has no relation to the _timae_ mentioned by Plutarch (see the next note) which was a valuation to be _received_ by the dispossessed. It can scarcely mean ”without further compensation”; but, if interpreted in this way, the two accounts can be brought into some relation with each other.

[341] Plut, _Ti. Gracch_. 9 [Greek: _ekeleuse timaen proslambanontas ekbainein hon adikos ekektaento_].

[342] Siculus Flaccus (p. 136 Lachm.); cf. Mommsen l.c.

[343] There is a reference to this limit in the extant _Lex Agraria_ (C.

I. L. i. n. 200; Bruns _Fontes_ 1. 3. 11) l. 14 Sei quis ... agri jugra Non amplius x.x.x possidebit habebitve, but there is no direct evidence to connect it with the Gracchan legislation.

[344] App. _Bell. Civ_. i. 10.

[345] Cf. p. 110.

[346] Mommsen l.c.

[347] App, _Bell. Civ_. i. 10

[348] Cic. _de Leg. Agr_. ii. 12. 31 Audes etiam, Rulle, mentionem facere legis Semp.r.o.niae, nec te ea lex ipsa commonet III viros illos x.x.xV tribuum suffragio creatos esse? App. _Bell. Civ_. i. 9 [Greek: _proset.i.thei ... taen loipaen treis airetous andras, henalla.s.somenous kat' hetos, dianemein tois penaesin_]. Strachan-Davidson (in loc.) doubts this latter characteristic of the magistracy. The history of the land-commission proves at least that the occupants of the post were perpetually re-eligible and could be chosen in their absence. Thus Gracchus, in spite of his two years' quaestors.h.i.+p in Sardinia, was still a commissioner in 124 B.C. (App. _Bell. Civ_. i. 21). See Mommsen _Staatsr_. ii. i. p. 632. The electing body was doubtless the _plebeian_ a.s.sembly of the tribes under the guidance of a tribune. This was the mode prescribed by Rullus's law of 63 B.C. (Cic. _de Leg. Agr_, ii.

7. 16).