<GetPassage xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns="http://chs.harvard.edu/xmlns/cts">
            <request>
                <requestName>GetPassage</requestName>
                <requestUrn>urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0551.tlg017.perseus-eng2:1.1.7-1.1.13</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0551.tlg017.perseus-eng2:1.1.7-1.1.13</urn>
                <passage>
                    <TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0"><text xml:lang="eng"><body><div type="edition" n="urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0551.tlg017.perseus-eng2" xml:lang="eng"><div n="1" type="textpart" subtype="book"><div n="1" type="textpart" subtype="chapter"><div n="7" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p>The Romans, as they subdued the Italian nations successively in war, seized a
						part of their lands and built towns there, or established their own colonies
						in those already existing, and used them in place of garrisons. Of the land
						acquired by war they assigned the cultivated part forthwith to settlers, or
						leased or sold it. Since they had no leisure as yet to allot the part which
						then lay desolated by war (this was generally the greater part), they made
						proclamation that in the meantime those who were willing to work it might do
						so for a share of the yearly crops a tenth of the grain and a fifth of the
						fruit. From those who kept flocks was required a share of the animals, both
						oxen and small cattle. They did these things in order to multiply the
						Italian race, which they considered the most laborious of peoples, so that
						they might have plenty of allies at home. But the very opposite thing
						happened; for the rich, getting possession of the greater part of the
						undistributed lands, and being emboldened by the lapse of time to believe
						that they would never be dispossessed, and adding to their holdings the
						small farms of their poor neighbors, partly by purchase and partly by force,
						came to cultivate vast tracts instead of single estates, using for this
						purpose slaves as laborers and herdsmen, lest free laborers should be drawn
						from agriculture into the army. The ownership of slaves itself brought them
						great gain from the multitude of their progeny, who increased because they
						were exempt from military service. Thus the powerful ones became enormously
						rich and the race of slaves multiplied throughout the country, while the
						Italian people dwindled in numbers and strength, being oppressed by penury,
						taxes, and military service. If they had any respite from these evils they
						passed their time in idleness, because the land was held by the rich, who
						employed slaves instead of freemen as cultivators. </p></div><div n="8" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p>For these reasons the people became troubled lest they should no longer have
						sufficient allies of the Italian stock, and lest the government itself
						should be endangered by such a vast number of slaves. Not perceiving any
						remedy, as it was not easy, nor exactly just, to deprive men of so many
						possessions they had held so long, including their own trees, buildings, and
						fixtures, a law was once <note anchored="true" resp="HW" place="marg">Y.R.
							387</note> passed with difficulty at the instance of the tribunes, that
							<note anchored="true" resp="HW" place="marg">B.C. <date when="-0367">367</date></note> nobody should hold more than 500 jugera of this
							land,<note anchored="true" resp="HW" place="foot"><foreign xml:lang="grc">th=sde th=s gh=s.</foreign> "<hi rend="ital">Of</hi> this
							land," the public land (<foreign xml:lang="lat">ager publicus</foreign>), not
							land in general. There has been much controversy over the question
							whether the agrarian laws of <placeName key="perseus,Rome">Rome</placeName> were sumptuary laws intended to restrict the
							amount of landed property that one man could hold, or whether they
							applied only to the public domain, and this passage in Appian has played
							a large part in the controversy. M. Dureau de la Malle in his
									<bibl><title>Economie Politique des Romains</title>
								(ii. 282 <foreign>seq.</foreign></bibl>) held that they were true
							sumptuary laws and he cited numerous authorities in support of the
							position. The most thorough examination of this question has been made
							by Mr. Geo. Long in his <bibl><title>Decline of the Roman
									Republic</title> (i. 144-159)</bibl>. His argument is convincing
							to the effect that these laws applied only to the public lands. This is
							the opinion also of Niebuhr, Mommsen, and Duruy. It may therefore be
							considered settled that they were not sumptuary laws and did not limit
							the amount of land a man might acquire by purchase, inheritance, or
							gift. The word <foreign xml:lang="lat">possessio</foreign> in Roman law meant
							not ownership, but a seizing or sitting upon land. A Possessor was a
							squatter. The law referred to by Appian as having been formerly passed
							with difficulty was the Licinian law, B.C. <date when="-0367">367</date>. The Roman jugerum was about two-thirds of an acre.</note>
						or pasture on it more than 100 cattle or 500 sheep. To ensure the observance
						of this law it was provided also that there should be a certain number of
						freemen employed on the farms, whose business it should be to watch and
						report what was going on.<note anchored="true" resp="HW" place="foot"><foreign xml:lang="grc">ta\ gignome/na,</foreign> "what was going on." Mr.
							Long in his history (i. 161 and 166) construes this phrase by the word
							"produce," meaning that it was the duty of the freemen employed on the
							farms to keep account of the crops and make reports to the public
							authorities so that the state might receive its due share. This may be
							the true meaning, but it should be observed that in the preceding
							section where the author speaks of the yearly produce he uses the words
								<foreign xml:lang="grc">tw=n e)thsi/wn karpw=n.</foreign> According to
							the other interpretation it was the duty of the freemen to keep watch
							and make reports to the masters in order to prevent servile
							insurrection.</note> Those who held possession of lands under the law
						were required to take an oath to obey the law, and penalties were fixed for
						violating it, and it was supposed that the remaining land would soon be
						divided among the poor in small parcels. But there was not the smallest
						consideration shown for the law or the oaths. The few who seemed to pay some
						respect to them conveyed their lands to their relations fraudulently, but
						the greater part disregarded it altogether. <note anchored="true" resp="HW" place="marg">Y.R. 621</note>
					</p></div><div n="9" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p>At length Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, an illustrious man, eager for glory,
						a most powerful speaker, and for these reasons well known to all, delivered
						an eloquent discourse, while serving as tribune, concerning the Italian
						race, lamenting that a people so valiant in war, and blood relations to the
						Romans, were declining little by little in pauperism and paucity of numbers
						without any hope of remedy. He inveighed against the multitude of slaves as
						useless in war and never faithful to their masters, and adduced the recent
						calamity brought upon the masters by their slaves in <placeName key="tgn,7003122">Sicily</placeName>, where the demands of agriculture
						had greatly increased the number of the latter; recalling also the war waged
						against them by the Romans, which was neither easy nor short, but
						long-protracted and full of vicissitudes <note anchored="true" resp="HW" place="marg">B.C. <date when="-0133">133</date></note> and dangers.
						After speaking thus he again brought forward the law, providing that nobody
						should hold more than 500 jugera of the public domain. But he added a
						provision to the former law, that the sons of the present occupiers might
						each hold one-half of that amount, and that the remainder should be divided
						among the poor by triumvirs, who should be changed annually. </p></div><div n="10" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p>This was extremely disturbing to the rich because, on account of the
						triumvirs, they could no longer disregard the law as they had done before;
						nor could they buy the allotments of others, because Gracchus had provided
						against this by forbidding sales. They collected together in groups, and
						made lamentation, and accused the poor of appropriating the results of their
						tillage, their vineyards, and their dwellings. Some said that they had paid
						the price of the land to their neighbors. Were they to lose the money with
						the land? Others said that the graves of their ancestors were in the ground,
						which had been allotted to them in the division of their fathers' estates.
						Others said that their wives' dowries had been expended on the estates, or
						that the land had been given to their own daughters as dowry. Money-lenders
						could show loans made on this security. All kinds of wailing and expressions
						of indignation were heard at once. On the other side were heard the
						lamentations of the poor--that they had been reduced from competence to
						extreme penury, and from that to childlessness, because they were unable to
						rear their offspring. They recounted the military services they had
						rendered, by which this very land had been acquired, and were angry that
						they should be robbed of their share of the common property. They reproached
						the rich for employing slaves, who were always faithless and ill-tempered
						and for that reason unserviceable in war, instead of freemen, citizens, and
						soldiers. While these classes were lamenting and indulging in mutual
						accusations, a great number of others, composed of colonists, or inhabitants
						of the free towns, or persons otherwise interested in the lands and who were
						under like apprehensions, flocked in and took sides with their respective
						factions. Emboldened by numbers and exasperated against each other they
						attached themselves to turbulent crowds, and waited for the voting on the
						new law, some trying to prevent its enactment by all means, and others
						supporting it in every possible way. In addition to personal interest the
						spirit of rivalry spurred both sides in the preparations they were making
						against each other for the day of the comitia. </p></div><div n="11" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p>What Gracchus had in his mind in proposing the measure was not wealth, but an
						increase of efficient population. Inspired greatly by the usefulness of the
						work, and believing that nothing more advantageous or admirable could ever
						happen to <placeName key="tgn,1000080">Italy</placeName>, he took no account
						of the difficulties surrounding it. When the time for voting came he
						advanced many other arguments at considerable length and also asked them
						whether it was not just to divide among the common people what belonged to
						them in common; whether a citizen was not worthy of more consideration at
						all times than a slave; whether a man who served in the army was not more
						useful than one who did not; and whether one who had a share in the country
						was not more likely to be devoted to the public interests. He did not dwell
						long on this comparison between freemen and slaves, which he considered
						degrading, but proceeded at once to a review of their hopes and fears for
						the country, saying that the Romans had acquired most of their territory by
						conquest, and that they had hopes of occupying the rest of the habitable
						world, but now the question of greatest hazard was, whether they should gain
						the rest by having plenty of brave men, or whether, through their weakness
						and mutual jealousy, their enemies should take away what they already
						possessed. After exaggerating the glory and riches on the one side and the
						danger and fear on the other, he admonished the rich to take heed, and said
						that for the realization of these, hopes they ought to bestow this very land
						as a free gift, if necessary, on men who would rear children, and not, by
						contending about small things, overlook larger ones; especially since they
						were receiving an ample compensation for labor expended in the undisputed
						title to 500 jugera each of free land, in a high state of cultivation,
						without cost, and half as much more for each son of those who had sons.
						After saying much more to the same purport and exciting the poor, as well as
						others who were moved by reason rather than by the desire for gain, he
						ordered the scribe to read the proposed law. </p></div><div n="12" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p>Marcus Octavius, another tribune, who had been induced by those in possession
						of the lands to interpose his veto (for among the Romans the tribune's veto
						always prevailed), ordered the scribe to keep silence. Thereupon Gracchus
						reproached him severely and adjourned the comitia to the following day. Then
						he stationed a sufficient guard, as if to force Octavius against his will,
						and ordered the scribe with threats to read the proposed law to the
						multitude. He began to read, but when Octavius again vetoed he stopped. Then
						the tribunes fell to wrangling with each other, and a considerable tumult
						arose among the people. The leading citizens besought the tribunes to submit
						their controversy to the Senate for decision. Gracchus seized on the
						suggestion, believing that the law was acceptable to all well-disposed
						persons, and hastened to the senate-house. There, as he had only a few
						followers and was upbraided by the rich, he ran back to the forum and said
						that he would take the vote at the comitia of the following day, both on the
						law and on the magistracy of Octavius, to determine whether a tribune who
						was acting contrary to the people's interest could continue to hold his
						office. And so he did, for when Octavius, nothing daunted, again interposed,
						Gracchus distributed the pebbles to take a vote on him first. When the first
						tribe voted to abrogate the magistracy of Octavius, Gracchus turned to him
						and begged him to desist from this veto. As he would not yield, the votes of
						the other tribes were taken. There were thirty-five tribes at that time. The
						seventeen that voted first angrily sustained this motion. If the eighteenth
						should do the same it would make a majority. Again did Gracchus, in the
						sight of the people, urgently importune Octavius in his present extreme
						danger not to prevent this most pious work, so useful to all <placeName key="tgn,1000080">Italy</placeName>, and not to frustrate the wishes so
						earnestly entertained by the people, whose desires he ought rather to share
						in his character of tribune, and not to risk the loss of his office by
						public condemnation. After speaking thus he called the gods to witness that
						he did not willingly do any despite to his colleague. As Octavius was still
						unyielding he went on taking the vote. Octavius was forthwith reduced to the
						rank of a private citizen and slunk away unobserved.<note anchored="true" resp="HW" place="foot">This was an unconstitutional proceeding. Under
							Roman law a tribune could not be deprived of his office during his
							official term.</note>
					</p></div><div n="13" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p>Quintus Mummius was chosen tribune in his place, and the agrarian law was
						enacted. The first triumvirs appointed to divide the land were Gracchus
						himself, the proposer of the law, his brother of the same name, and his
						father-in-law, Appius Claudius, since the people still feared that the law
						might fail of execution unless Gracchus should be put in the lead with his
						whole family. Gracchus became immensely popular by reason of the law and was
						escorted home by the multitude as though he were the founder, not of a
						single city or race, but of all the nations of <placeName key="tgn,1000080">Italy</placeName>. After, this the victorious party returned to the
						fields from which they had come to attend to this business. The defeated
						ones remained in the city and talked the matter over, feeling bitterly, and
						saying that as soon as Gracchus should become a private citizen he would be
						sorry that he had done despite to the sacred and inviolable office of
						tribune, and had opened such a fountain of discord in <placeName key="tgn,1000080">Italy</placeName>.</p></div></div></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>