Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-xq9c7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-25T12:02:13.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Ownership of Roman Land: Tiberius Gracchus and the Italians

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

J. S. Richardson
J. S. Richardson
Affiliation:
St. Salvator's College, St. Andrews
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The agrarian law of Tiberius Gracchus is on any reckoning a significant piece of legislation in the history of the later Roman republic, and it is a measure of our ignorance of that critical period that it should still be possible to ask who he intended its beneficiaries to be without any immediate prospect of a clear answer. This is of especial concern because the problem affects not only the interpretation of Gracchus himself, and the evaluation of the sources for the period, but also our estimate of the whole complex of attitudes and actions which make up the turbulent half-century which followed his death in 133 B.C.

In so far as there is any agreement among modern scholars, opinion has favoured the view that Roman citizens alone were intended to profit from the law. I wish to suggest here firstly that the connection between land distribution and citizenship is more intimate and more complex than has sometimes been realised, and also that an inclusion of non-Romans among the beneficiaries of Gracchus' law may explain certain puzzling features in the historical tradition about the law itself and its aftermath.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 70 , November 1980 , pp. 1 - 11
Copyright
Copyright © J. S. Richardson 1980. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Thus a standard general history of the period (Scullard, H. H., From the Gracchi to Nero, 388 n. 8Google Scholar) makes no mention of the matter; and E. Badian, in a masterly survey of Gracchus' tribunate (in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, ed. H. Temporini, 1.1 (1972), 701–2 with n. 100) brusquely dismisses the problem. The arguments in favour of Italian participation in the Sempronian lex agraria assembled by Göhler, J., Rom und Italien (1939), 70–131Google Scholar, are rehearsed in a recent article by Shochat, Y. (Athenaeum n. s. 48 (1970), 25–45)Google Scholar, and attacked by D. Brendan Nagle in the same issue of that periodical (ibid., 372–94). Some unease at the consensus that Romans alone received allotments has been expressed by E. Gabba (in, for example, RFIC n.s. 37 (1959), 193–4) and more recently by Sherwin-White, A. N. (The Roman Citizenship2 (1973), 217–18Google Scholar). Bernstein, A. H., Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus (1978), 137–59Google Scholar, advances the view, suggested by C. E. Stevens, that Italians were originally included in Gracchus' scheme, but excluded from the final version. Stockton, D., The Gracchi (1979), 42–6Google Scholar, surveys earlier scholarship.

2 Appian, BC 1. 9. 37 and 1. 11. 46; Plutarch, Ti. Gracchus 9. 2–3; Livy, Ep. 58.

3 Appian, BC 1. 7. 26–8; Plut., Ti. Gracchus 8. 1–4; Toynbee, A. J., Hannibal's Legacy (1965), I. 163 f.Google Scholar, n. 556–61.

4 cf. Badian, op. cit. (n. 1), 702–3.

5 Th. Mommsen, Gesamm. Schr. 1 (1905), 103; Badian, op. cit. (n. I), 704.

6 Cicero, de lege agraria 2. 5. 10; 2. 29. 81; pro Sestio 48. 103.

7 Schol. Bob. on pro Sestio 48. 103 (Stangl p. 135) : ‘Agrariam Tiberius, frumentariam C. Gracchus ferebat: Ille, ut ager publicus Romanae plebi divideretur, quae lex ei magnam conflavit invidiam; C. autem, frater eius, illam frumentariam de qua supra locuti sumus.’

8 BC 1. 7. 28

9 ibid., 1. 9. 35 f.

10 ibid., 1. 11. 43.

11 ibid., 1. 13. 56.

12 The view that by Ἰταλιῶται Appian was referring not to Italians but to Roman citizens in Italy (so Gelzer, M., Gnomon 5 (1929), 298–9Google Scholar = Kl. Schr. II. 75; also in Gnomon 30 (1958), 218Google Scholar = Kl. Schr. III. 288–9) has been shown to be at variance not only with Appian's language at this point, but also with his understanding of the Gracchan episode in the development of Civil Wars I (Cuff, P. J., Historia 16 (1967), 177–88)Google Scholar.

13 TG 8. 1.

14 ibid., 9. 2.

15 e.g. ibid., 9. 3; 10. 1; 12. 6.

16 ibid., 8. 4.

17 ibid., 8, 9.

18 ibid., 9. 5.

19 Thus Göhler, op. cit. (n. 1), 102 f.

20 Thus Appian, BC 1. 7. 30 describes the poor Italians as worn out by poverty, taxes (ἑσφοραί) and military service. Nagle, op. cit. (n. 1), 376 claims that this shows that A.'s source referred to Romans, as Italians did not pay tributum to Rome. C. Nicolet has argued recently that Appian is referring to taxes paid by Italians in and to their own states (PBSR 46 (1978), 1); but even if Appian did intend to refer to tributum, the error is hardly of great significance (cf. Gabba's commentary (second edition, 1967) ad loc).

21 Vell. Pat. 2. 2. 2–3, reading ‘statim’ with Gelenius, rather than ‘statum’ of the editio princeps. As Fraccaro has shown (Studi sull' età dei Gracchi (1914), 155 n. 1) there is no significance in Velleius' use of the plural ‘legibus’, cf. Tacitus, Ann. 12. 60.

22 2. 3. 2.

23 Thus Badian, Foreign Clientelae (1958), 170 n. 2.

24 Gelzer, op. cit. (n. 12), 299–300 = Kl. Schr. 11. 76–7; Badian, op. cit. (n. 23), 172–3; contra, P. Fraccaro, op. cit. (n. 21), 30–4.

25 Badian, op. cit., 173 n. 1, though Appian is not uniformly silent about sources, thus Iber. 88. 382.

26 TG 8. 9.

27 Thus both Velleius and Plutarch describe Gracchus as a promising young optimate who went wrong (Vell. Pat. 2. 2. 1–2; Plutarch, TG 2–4; 7. 7), and both ascribe his involvement in the disgrace of Mancinus at Numantia as the basic reason for his entry into ‘popularis’ politics (Vell. Pat. 2. 2. 1; Plutarch, TG 7). Appian has neither of these elements in his account of Gracchus, nor indeed does Gracchus appear in his version of the events surrounding Mancinus' surrender in Spain in 137 (Appian, Iber. 80. 346 f.). For Velleius' antecedents, see G. V. Sumner, HSCPh 74 (1970), 257–65.

28 Bernstein, op. cit. (n. 1), 137–59.

29 TG 10. 3.

30 2. 2. 2

31 Appian, BC 1. 7. 26 f.; Plutarch, TG 8. On the earlier situation, see J. Göhler, op. cit. (n. 1), 70 f.; Burdese, A., Studi sull'ager publicus (1952), 13 fGoogle Scholar.

32 The law setting up the colonies had been passed in 197 (Livy 32. 29. 3–4). Before they were actually founded, some Hernicans from Ferentinum had been claiming Roman citizenship on the grounds that their names were on the roll of the new colonies, a claim which was disallowed by the senate (Livy 34. 42. 5–6; cf. Smith, R. E., JRS 44 (1954), 18–20)Google Scholar.

33 Livy 42. 4. 3–4.

34 On socii ac nominis Latini, Wegner, M., Untersuckungen zu den lateinischen Begriffen Socius und Societas (1969), 95–104Google Scholar. On Ennius, Cic., Brut. 20. 79 and Livy 39. 44. 10.

35 So Beloch, , Der italische Bund (1880), 218–20Google Scholar; Salmon, E. T., Roman colonization under the Republic (1969), 98–9Google Scholar.

35a In general, see Salmon, op. cit., 55 and 174 n. 65. For Romans changing their status see Cic., pro Caec. 33. 98, de domo 30. 78 and Gaius 3. 55.

36 Lex agr. (FIRA 1. 8) line 29: ‘… agreis, qu[ei in Ita]lia sunt quei P. Mucio L. Calpurnio cos. publiceis populi R[omanei fuerunt ceivi] Romano facere licebit, item Latino peregrinoque’.

37 Nagle, art. cit. (n. 1), 378.

38 Appian, BC 1. 23. 98–100; Plut., CG 8–9.

39 Plut., CG 9. 5.

40 So H. M. Last, CAH IX 1–10; Tibiletti, G., Athenaeum 27 (1949), 37–41Google Scholar.

41 So Earl, D. C., Tiberius Gracchus (1963), 30–40Google Scholar; Badian, op. cit. (n. 1), 684–90.

42 A point well made by Earl, op. cit. (n. 41), 21–2; cf. Göhler, op. cit. (n. 1), 124–5.

43 D. C. Earl, op. cit. (n. 41), 30 f.

44 Brunt, , Italian Manpower 225 B.C.–A.D.14 (1971). 677–86Google Scholar.

45 Tibiletti, G., Athenaeum 26 (1948), 173–229;Google Scholar 27 (1949). 3–34; 28 (1950), 183–245; cf. Appian, BC 1. 7. 26–8. 34; Plutarch, TG 8, 1–4.

46 BC 1. 9. 37–47.

47 On possessio, see Watson, A., The Law of Property in the later Roman republic (1968), 81 fGoogle Scholar.

48 Lex agr. (FIRA 1. 8) lines 1–10. The fundamental nature of the privatus/publicus distinction is made very clear by M. Kaser, ZSS 62 (1942), 1–26. It should be noted that the question of whether or not vectigal was paid on these holdings, or whether it was possible for the owner to buy or sell the land, does not affect the status of the land as ager privatus. Though it is quite likely that it would not be ‘optuma lege privatus’ if such restrictions applied, it would still be land held ex iure Quiritium (cf. lex agr. line 27; Kaser, art. cit., 6–13, 25–6).

49 Kaser, art. cit., p. 11 and n. 32 argues that the ‘veteres possessiones’ are still ager publicus until 111, because they are not said to have been assigned by the triumvirs in lines 1–2 (cf. lines 16–17); and that the concession described in Appian, BC 1. 11. 46 may be no more than the renunciation of the state's right to recall land (cf. lines 11–12 on the viasii vicani). However if this land remained ager publicus, it is difficult to see why, in laying down rules for the establishment of a title, the legislator should have concerned himself with sales and (it would seem) testamentary dispositions of those who were possessores of ager publicus in 133, unless the situation had changed at that date. Neither is it necessary to supplement lex agr. lines 4–6 to refer to non-Roman holders of land (as Johannsen, K., Die lex agraria des Jahres III v. Chr. (Diss. München 1971), 220Google Scholar f.); indeed, as the following argument shows, such a reference would have been wholly inappropriate in IIII.

50 Watson, A., Roman Private Law around 200 B.C. (1971), 60 fGoogle Scholar.

51 Watson, op. cit. (n. 47), 17. In iure cessio required the transferor and the transferee to appear before the praetor with the thing to be transferred, and was thus inappropriate to land (Gaius 2. 24; cf. 1. 121); usucapio required that the new owner should have been in possession for two years, which again does not fit the procedures which the land commission is likely to have used (Gaius 2. 42; Ulpian, Tit. 19. 8). Note Ulpian's remark ‘mancipatio propria species alienationis rerum mancipi’ (Tit. 19. 3).

52 Gaius 1. 119.

53 Ulpian, Tit. 19. 4: ‘mancipatio locum habet inter cives Romanos et Latinos coloniarios Latinosque Iunianos eosque peregrinos, quibus commercium datum est’. It seems probable that the ius commercii, which was one of the privileges of the Latins (A. N. Sherwin-White, op. cit. (n. 1), 109), was not given to the Italians at this date. The only evidence to the contrary that Sherwin-White produces is Livy 35. 7. 5, which refers to money transactions; as pecunia was res nec mancipi, this could have been dealt with under the more flexible jurisdiction of the praetor inter peregrinos (Sherwin-White, op. cit. (n. 1), 125–6, cf. Serrao, F.La iurisdictio del pretore peregrino (1954), esp. pp. 7 f. and 36 f.Google Scholar).

54 Livy 43. 5, esp. 9: ‘ilia petentibus data ut denorum equorum iis commercium esset educendique ex Italia potestas fieret’. Cf. E. Weiss, ZSS 37 (1916), 141.

55 Serv., in Aen. 9. 52, cf. J. Marquardt, Röm. Staatsverwaltung (1885) III, 422–3.

56 Varro, L. L. 5. 33. On the religious importance of the Romanus/peregrinus distinction in the second century, see E. Rawson, CQ n.s. 21 (1971), 161–3.

57 Varro, loc. cit.: ‘Gabinus quoque peregrinus, sed quod auspicia habet singularia, ab reliquo discretus’.

58 Gaius 1. 79.

59 Kaser, M., ‘Vom Begriff des “commercium”’, in Studi Arangio-Ruiz 11 (1953), 131Google Scholar f., esp. 134–52.

60 The position is expounded by Mommsen, Rom. Staatsr. 111. 824–32, though he denies the conclusion adopted here (ibid., 831 n. 1). 61

61 Livy 23. 19. 16–20. 2; 23. 31. 10 (cf. Tibiletti, G., Athenaeum 28 (1950), 212Google Scholar f.); on the franchise, Livy 38. 36. 7 (cf. Badian, op. cit. (n. i), pp. 694–6). Note also the case of the Carthaginian deserter, Valerius Muttines, who was given citizenship and a house in Rome during the Hannibalic War (Livy 27. 5. 7; Asconius 13 c).

62 Velleius 2. 2. 2 (cf. above p. 2 f.).

63 Plutarch, TG 16. 1.

64 So Badian, Foreign Clientelae, 170–1.

65 It is worth noticing that ‘perseveravit in civibus’ is in any case an extremely odd phrase for ‘he confined his attempts to benefit people to Roman citizens’. All uses of perseverare in that I have been able to trace in Cicero have referred to continuance in a line of action or in an opinion: ad Att. 6. 3. 5; 8. 11. 5; ad fam. 3. 10. 6; de prov. cons. 10; de inv. 2. 5; 2. 9; de leg. 3. 26; de off. 3. 95; de nat. deor. 3.83.

66 Appian, BC 1. 18. 76 f.; Schol. Bob. on pro Mil. 16 (Stangl p. 118): ‘P. Scipio Africanus… cum Latinorum causam societatis iure contra C. Gracchum triumvirum eiusque collegas perseveranter defensurus esset, ne ager ipsorum divideretur, repentina morte domi suae interceptus est.’

67 Pro Balb. 13. Cf. also pro Balb. 10; 13; 19; 29 and 52 for similar language about treaty-breaking, and Braunert, H., ‘Verfassungsnorm und Verfassungswirklichkeit in spätrepublikanischen Rom’, Das altsprachliche Unterricht IX. 1 (1966), 51–73,Google Scholar for an analysis of the argument.

68 Livy 39. 3. 4–6; 41. 8. 6–12.

68a For the census figures see Brunt, P. A., Italian Manpower (1971), 13 and 61–83Google Scholar.

69 So Badian, Foreign Clientelae, 171.

70 e.g. Cic., de rep. 1. 19. 31; Plutarch, TG 8–9; Appian, BC 1. 9–10; Velleius 2. 2. 3.

71 Cic., de rep. 1. 19. 31; above p. 8.

72 Appian, BC 1. 8–9; Plutarch, TG 8. The air of antiquity which the sources give is undoubtedly present, whether or not the details of the law in fact date from c. 167, as ably argued by Tibiletti (Athenaeum n.s. 26 (1948), 191 f.).

73 Dionysius of Halicarnassus: see Gabba, E., Athenaeum n.s. 42 (1964), 29Google Scholar ff.; on Livy, see Ogilvie, R. M., Commentary on Livy, books 1–5 (1965), 555; 591 and 547Google Scholar.

74 Dion. Hal. 8. 68–76, cf. Gabba, art cit. (n. 73); Livy 6. 4. 4, ‘eo anno in civitatem accepti qui Veientium Capenatiumque ac Faliscorum per ea bella transfugerant ad Romanos, agerque his novis civibus adsignatus’ (389 B.C.); cf. Livy 5. 30. 8

75 Gabba, E., Republican Rome, the Army and the Allies (tr. Cuff, P. J.) (1976), 70Google Scholar = Athenaeum n.s. 32 (1954), 41

76 Appian, BC 1. 21. 86 f.; Val. Max. 9. 5. 1.

77 I gratefully acknowledge the assistance and forebearance of many friends in the preparation of this article, and especially George Forrest, Martin Frederiksen, Ursula Hall, Michael Crawford, and my three colleagues in St. Andrews. None is responsible for any errors of fact and logic which it may contain.