I .. _. m3. 9; q '3??? fl}. 5.. :. ThESls twang/4mm I; .. . I _ ff" . ’30.; 9-,; —\%t..4:?- in a 4- I @505 ' ”1”! - y/’f¢¢7flv” '4" . {Cu 2.”: ‘3 Tag. J40 I I. " t ‘ w- m This is to certify that the thesis entitled LAND-HOLDING PATTERNS IN ITALY DURING THE EARLY ROMAN EMPIRE presented by Danke Li has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for \ , / J , ./r’ _ ,_ /‘ ' / degree 1n r 754-! -' ~ 7 1/ a fly / . / Major professor / Eleanor G. Huzar L x '. , .- a » / Date bur/{1' L 5/; 1' If 4? /IC/ (/27 i I, 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution MSU LIBRARIES W RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. .M-*gh.fi v-.. LAND-HOLDING PATTERNS IN ITALY DURING THE 'EARLY ROMAN EMPIRE BY Danke Li A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of History 1984 ABSTRACT LAND-HOLDING PATTERNS IN ITALY DURING THE EARLY ROMAN EMPIRE BY Danke Li Underlying the general theme of this.study is the belief that although 27 B.C. was the acknowledged beginning of the Roman Empire, the economic, political, and social shifts from the Republican patterns to the Imperial were continuing during the early Roman Empire. Land-holding systems, especially the Italian land-holding system, played a crucial role during such shifts, and directly or indirectly influenced the early Roman imperial policies. This thesis is focused on Italian land-holding patterns during the early Roman Empire. It studies the origins and nature of such land-holding patterns in terms of who held the lands, who tilled them, and who managed them, in order to understand how the Italian land—holding system influenced or was influenced by the political sta- bility, economic growth, and social mobility of the early Empire. TO MY PARENTS ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to take this Opportunity to express my most sincere appreciation to Professor Eleanor.Huzar, without whose patience, invaluable guidances, and assistance at various stages this paper could never have been finished. I would also like to thank Professor Richard Sullivan for his invaluable time and great help. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. II. III. IV. VI. VII. A REVIEW OF ITALIAN LAND HOLDING DURING THE REPUBLICAN PERIOD . . . . Footnotes-~Chapter I . . . . . PUBLIC LANDS . . . . . . . Footnotes-~Chapter II . . . . PRIVATE LAND HOLDINGS ’. . . . Footnotes--Chapter III . . . . IMPERIAL ESTATES . . . . . . Footnotes-~Chapter IV . . . . URBAN PROPERTY . . . . . . . Footnotes--Chapter V . . . . THE MANAGEMENT OF LANDED PROPERTY Footnotes--Chapter VI . . . . CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . Footnotes--Chapter VII . . . . APPENDIX 0 o o o o o o o o o o BIBLIOGRAPHY '- o o o o o o o o 0 iv Page 16 18 24 25 38 41 44 45 51 S3 65 67 79 81 85 CHAPTER I A REVIEW OF ITALIAN LAND HOLDING DURING THE REPUBLICAN PERIOD In ancient Roman history, agriculture always was r the main element of the economy, and land-holding systems always played a very important role in the ancient Roman economy, as well as in Roman politics and society. The Romans appear to have been innately good farme ers. From the very beginning, when the Roman Republic was first established, the Roman institutions determined that a Roman's life was very closely linked with land. During the early period of the Roman Republic, Roman citizenship meant the combination of the right of land holding in Italy, the political right of the vote, and the social right of serv- ing in the militia. During the early period, most of the conquered land became public land, and was distributed only among Roman citizens. Although some Roman nobles had the ' tendency to hold or try to hold more land than others, every Roman citizen had the right to participate in the distribu- tion of public land. This right to receive public land gave Roman citizens a great leverage to maintain their superior position in comparison with other non-Romans in Italy. During the early Roman Republican period, almost every Roman was an owner of a plot of land which could provide him and his family a simple, but not poor, life, and enable him to secure the equipment of a soldier. The overwhelming importance of agriculture in the Roman economy determined that most of the wealth in Roman 1 Landed property was the society came from this source. symbol of a Roman's wealth, and it also was the security for loans. Wealthy Romans tended to invest their surplus wealth in land, especially arable land, which was the safest form of investment. They hoped for a regular return from their land, which was probably around 5 to 6 percent of their tinvestment yearly.2 For the poor Romans, protecting the ownership of their lands meant not only protecting what they lived on, but also protecting themselves from slavery, and protecting their legal rights to participate in politi- cal and social activities. Moreover, since from the very beginning Roman society was an aristocratic and highly stratified society, peOple's ideology strongly favored land owners. A standard Roman gentleman must be a land owner and make his liveli- hood on land not in crafts, or business. Cato's famous statement in his 92 Agriculture is a good example of the Roman aristocratic ideology. It is true that to obtain money by trade is some- times more profitable,.were it not so hazardous: and likewise money-lending, if it were as honourable. Our ancestors held this view and embodied it in their laws, which required that the thief be mulcted double and the usurer fourfold; how much less desirable a citizen they considered the usurer than the thief, one may judge from this. And when they would praise a worthy man their praise took this form: ”good husbandman," "good farmerg" one so praised was thought to have received the greatest commendation. The trader I consider to be an ener— getic man, and one bent on making money; but, as I said above, it is a dangerous career and one subject to disaster. 0n the other hand, it is from the farm- ing class that the bravest men and the sturdiest soldiers come, their calling is most highly respected, their livelihood is most assured and is looked on with the least hostility and those who i are engaged in that pursuit are least inclined to be disaffected.3 '1' ‘. According to the law which was passed during the second Punic war, and according to the tradition, the upper class, senators and their family members were forbidden to engage in commerce or to take part in the purchase of public contracts, even though the contracts were profitable. In most cases, distinguished Senators were more than happy to reside on their estates and supervise the farm work person- ally,4 or even to work in the fields with their own hands. Cato, himself, was a good example. Therefore, those Romans who got rich through their involvement in.business, even if they invested their money in land and even if their land- holding background was unquestioned, still were regarded as unsuitable for political office. "Merchants might retire from their trade and invest their money in respectable Italian land, and be acceptable socially; yet, they would still be regarded as not quite fit to be senators, certainly not to be consuls."5 Probably not even their sons could easily achieve senatorial rank. The Roman's love for land and economic dependence on the soil can be seen in many ways. 'Unlike the Greeks who fought primarily for their internal or overseas commer- cial interests, the Romans won their conquests--first in Italy, then over the Mediterranean world mainly to satisfy their greed for land and their interests in agriculture. For example, the lack of Roman interest in foreign trade was plainly shown by the terms of the 4th century B.C. treaties with Carthage: The Romans tried mainly to protect the Latin coast militarily, and allowed the Carthaginians to monopolize 6 Furthermore, the the trade in the western Mediterranean. seaboard cities, such as Antium, during the early Roman Republic were intended to protect the coast land against military attack, rather than to Open up overseas trade.7 Thus the Romans, at least during the early Repub- lican period, seem to have had little commercial or overseas trade sense,8 at least we cannot see any from the leading class's internal or international policies. This can also be ascertained from the history of Roman coinage. The Roman's first minting of bronze was probably not issued until about 300 B.C., and the earliest silver coins appeared not long before the first Punic war.9 Along with the Roman expansion, some Romans and Italians began to engage in various businesses, such as the supplying of the tr00ps, or the contracting for the public constructions, or the collecting of taxes from the provinces. After the Romans' conquest of the Mediterranean world, Italian traders and capitalists gained a stronger position in Aegean economic life and were active on the trade routes around the Mediterranean world. Nevertheless, the Romans' major interest still essentially focused on land and on agriculture. Their conquests over the whole Mediterranean world certainly brought huge territories to the Romans. By the second century B.C., Italy had become the most important political and economic center of the Mediterranean world. Moreover, along with their expansion, the Romans widely assimilated aspects of Hellenistic cultures, and.the assim- ilations effectively benefited the Romans. Scientific agriculture on Hellenistic models had begun to appear before the second Punic war and expanded markedly in the 10 These Hellenistic models included at second century. least two major aspects: more develoPed techniques of agriculture, such as cattle breeding, and new methods of agricultural management, whereby slaves worked as laborers, and a slave manager or freedman manager replaced the land owner's own supervision in the fields. From.the economic viewpoint, those changes in Italian agriculture encouraged great progress for the Romans, for Italy had never produced food in greater quantity or in better quality before. But the shifting social pattern caused by the Romans’ world empire also brought many problems to the Romans. One of the most serious problems was the change of the Italian land-holding system, which in so many aspects was linked with every Italian's fortune. Along with Roman expansion, the public land increased rapidly, result- ing from the confiscations in areas which had defected to Rome's enemies, or the confiscations during the internal political struggles. These public lands, in order to be utilized, were rented out for an annual fee. But because of the cost, they were leased from the State almost wholly by senatorial aristocrats or wealthy leaders of the Italian cities. In addition, the size of the private land of a few leading aristocrats increased at the expense of many poorer Roman citizens. Those small land holders lost their lands by taking'out‘usurious loans, often from rich large land hold— ers. The small farmers fell into debt because of competi- tion with the big business of large estates, and these problems were often aggravated by the long-term absence from their lands during the wars. The fact that many Roman citizens lost their lands had terribly harmed the strength of the Roman army which was the base of the Roman expansion. During the early Republican period, the Roman soldiers had to supply them- selves with necessary equipment. If a Roman lost his land, it meant that he lost his ability to be a fighter in the heavy armed legions. Since the small farmers constituted the backbone of the Roman legions, the decrease in the number of citizen farmers meant the decrease in the strength of the Roman army. In the second century B.C., Rome had to eat its own bitter fruit--to face the problem of the shortage of manpower for the army.. For instance, from the new outburst of Spanish revolts in 154 B.C. onward, the Romans frequently had problems filling the ranks of their armies in Spain, Africa, and the East. According to Livy, in 151 B.C., when the consuls Lucius Licinius Lucullus and Aulus Postumius Albinus were conducting the levy strictly and exempting no one as a favor, they were thrown into prison by tribunes of the peOple, who were unable to obtain exemption for their friends. When numerous failures in the war in Spain had caused such confusion in the Roman State that no one could be found even to undertake service as military tribune, or to accept a post as staff ,office. . . . 1 ‘ The same thing happened also to the consuls of 138 B.C. Moreover, land problems not only endangered the Roman military force; they also brought many social problems to Rome. A few ambitious people, to gain support for their own advancement, could exploit the dissatisfac- tion of the displaced farmers. On the whole, during the last century of the Roman Republic, its social, economic, and military crises which threatened the existence of the Republican regime were directly or indirectly, related to the land-question. 8 Therefore, some intelligent Roman nobles realized the terrible situation and tried to save the Roman Republic from collapse. The Gracchi.brothers represented the reforming ideas of those nobles. The Gracchi, especially Tiberius Gracchus who could base his beliefs on his own experience in Spain and in other places, rightly realized that the fundamental cause for the decline of the free peasantry which furnished the Roman armies was the land question. Accordingly, they tried to carry out a new land law in order to limit the size of individual land holding, and thus, in some degree, to satisfy the poor's land hunger. But, by the end of the second century B.C., the Roman Republic was quite different from its early period. It had been changed from.a small city state to a world empire, its old simple pattern was gone. What Rome had to face at this time was not only the poor's land hunger, the rich men's greed, the Italians' demand for the same civil rights as those of the Romans, or even those new rising military generals' ambitions; more importantly, it had to face the redistribution of power and property,12 which was demanded by the whole society. The Gracchi brothers' reform prescription certainly could not and did not meet the requirements of the redistribution. The Romans stumbled into the "solution" of a civil war. For the poor Romans, civil war brought dreams of land redis- tribution which meant the hope of regaining a plot of land and regaining their active participation in the army and political activities; for the Italians, civil war meant the extension of Roman citizenship; for rich men and ambi- tious generals, it meant more prOperty and power. The eighty years of civil wars offered, indeed, Opportunities to every Roman and Italian to reach his hoped—for goal. However, in the struggles over the power and prop- erty redistributions, the land question played a very important role, and, sometimes, it even played a dominating role. By the time of the civil wars, it was commonly recognized that the general who had a dependable, faithful army had the power. Although the political attitudes of the legionaries in the later Republic were varied and come plex, everyone realized that the army was the most impor- tant instrument in the struggle for the redistribution Of power and property. Every ambitious man tried to build or control a force, and many Romans and Italians were attracted by the inducements offered to join one of the personally recruited armies. During the early Republican period, Roman.military service was the duty of the able-bodied citizen, whenever the state was threatened. The campaigning season normally began in the spring and ended before the harvest. This Roman citizen militia was stricly an amateur body and the 10 soldiers did not receive pay,13 unless there was booty to be shared. According to Diodorus Siculus and.Livy, in the campaign of Veii in 403 B.C., "The Romans voted for the first time to give annual pay to the sOldiers for their service."14 Thus the citizen.militia began to receive compensation for long-term campaigns. Polybius, however, was the first writer to give details of the Roman soldier's pay: As pay the foot-soldier receives two obols a day, a centurion twice as much, and a cavalry-soldier a drachma. The allowance of corn to a foot soldier is about two-thirds of an Attic medimnus a month, a cavalry-soldier receives seven medimni of barley and two of wheat. 0f the allies the infantry receive the same, the cavalry one and one-third medimnus of wheat and five of barley, these rations being a free gift to the allies; but in the case of the Romans,the.quastor deducts from their pay the price fixed for their corn and clothes and additional arms they require.15 Certainly during the last century of the Roman Republic, during those countless political and military conflicts between Marius and Sulla, or among the first triumvirs, the Roman Soldiers' payment was different under different generals and in different circumstances. It is certain that Caesar as a general doubled the pay of his soldiers from the annual rate of 112% denarii to 225 denarii.16 But when wars of conquest were long, especially after the out- break of the civil wars, the monetary demands Of the soldiers increased steadily until money could not buy their loyalty anymore. They wanted something more reliable than money--it was land. 11 Most of the Roman or Italian soldiers were the men who had lost their property or, as free tenants and day laborers, had never possessed any property. The soldiers had very little opportunity to be emplOyed in civilian life after discharge because the majority of the Italian pOpulation was familiar only with agricultural works. Trade and crafts were mainly in the hands of slaves and freedmen. In.addition, it was not easy for those veterans to buy land in Italy if they were not under some special leader's patronage. Because there were so many soldiers discharged from the legions yearly, rarely was private land available even to wealthy veterans willing to pay for land holdings. The veterans could gain a plot of land only from the public sources or from the confiscated lands, and this was possible only with the help of the powerful generals. 'This simple fact was why, during the civil wars, so many Romans and Italians gambled their fortunes on the army. In turn, generals certainly needed soldiers and needed their loyalty;and land became the generals' bait to attract soldiers. Even Appian noted that during the last century of the Republic, the generals, for the most part, as is usually the case in civil wars, were not regularly chosen; that their armies were not drawn from the enrolment according to the custom of the fathers, nor for the benefit of their country; that they did.not serve the public so much as they did the individuals who brought them together; and that they served these not by the force of law, but by reason of private 12 promises, not against the common enemy, but against private foes; not against foreigners, but against fellow-citizens, their equals in rank. All these things impaired military discipline, and the soldiers thought that they were not so much serving in the army as lending assistance by their own favour and judgement, to leaders who needed them for their own personal ends.17 Actually after the time of the Gracchi brothers' reforms, almost every ambitious Roman general or politician realized the importance of the land question and tried to make use of it. Sulla was the first Roman who depended on his military force to try to establish his personal dicta- torship. He attracted his soldiers and his enemies' troops by promising them greater and more definite advantages than did his foes. For example, according to Plutarch, when Sulla was surrounded by the trOOps of his enemy Scipio, he tried to debauch Scipio's men by means of his own . - - entering into the enemy's quarters and join- ing in conversation, they [Sulla's soldiers].gained - - some by present money, some by promises, others by fair words and persuasions; so that in the end, when Sulla with twenty cohorts drew near, on his men saluting Scipio's soldiers, they returned the greet— ing and came over, leaving Scipio behind them in his tent where he was found all alone and dis- missed.1é Plutarch also records that as soon as Sulla returned to Rome and declared himself dictator, he immediately had an act passed: ”granting indemnity for what was passed, and for the future intrusting him with the power of life and death, confiscation, division of land. . . .‘19 When Marius 13 was elected consul for the sixth time, in 100 B.C., a major land law was issued which, in turn, favored his veterans. After Marius' military reforms, the Roman civil militia was replaced by regularly paid troops. Soldiers were ever greedier, and land Openly became the major motive which attracted many soldiers into the army. Caesar proba— bly was the first Roman general who bought lands for his soldiers. Meanwhile, he also was very good at playing the land-question as an instrument for his political gains. From 60 B.C. onwards, Caesar prOposed a number Of land laws in order to please the Romans. Dio Cassius tells-us that in 59 B.C.: Caesar wished to gain the favor of the whole multi- tude, that he might make them his own to an even greater degree. But since he was anxious to seem to be advancing the interests also of the Optimates, in order to avoid incurring their enmity, he often told them that he would propose no measure which should not also be to their advantage. And, indeed, he so framed a certain measure concerning the land, which he wished to assign to the whole pOpulace, as not to incur the least censure for it; yet he pre- tended he would not introduce even this measured unless it should be according to their wishes.2 'Here Caesar's land bill certainly was an Obvious decoy to win political support from the lower classes, while placat- ing the wealthy. In the same year, Caesar also prOposed that the new revenues from Pompey's conquests should be 21 Even Catiline in used to purchase lands for veterans. 63 B.C. tried to use a program of cancellation of debts and redistribution of land to obtain the Romansi support. 14 In 44 B.C. after Caesar's assassination, his veterans deeply feared, not Caesar's enemies, but that they might lose the allotments Caesar had assigned to them, According to Appian, at one moment in 44 B.C., when Octavian declared himself to be an obedient servant of the Republic, and was ready to Oppose Antony, he immediately lost the favor of Caesar's veterans who cared only for vengeance on Caesar's assassination and the realization of their land allotments.22 This was why, at least in 43 B.C., even the Senate saw the necessity of satisfying the land desire of those soldiers on whom the nobles depended to fight with Antony. Accord- ing to Cicero, on January 1, 43 B.C., the Senate passed a decree in this form. The Senate decrees the veteran soldiers who have defended and are defending Caesar, pontiff and the authority of this order, should, and ytheir children after them, have an exemption from military service. And that Caius Pansa and Aulus Hirtius, the consuls, one or both of them, as they think fit, shall inquire what land there is in those colonies in which the veteran soldiers have been settled, which is occupied in defiance of the provisions of the Julian law, in order that they may be divided among these veterans. That they shall institute a separate inquiry about the Campanian district, and devise a plan for increasing the advantages enjoyed by these veteran soldiers; and with respect to the Martian legion,and to the fourth legion, and to those soldiers of the second and thirty-fifth legions who have come over to Caius Pansa, . . . the Senate decrees that they and their children shall have exemption from military service, except in the case of any Gallic and Italian sedition; and decrees further, that those legions shall have their discharge when this war is terminated, and that whatever sum of money Caius Caesar, pontiff and prOpraetor, has promised to the soldiers of those legions individually, shall be paid to them. And 15 that Caius Pansa and Aulus Hirtius the consuls, one or both of them, as it seems good to them, shall make an estimate of the land which can be distributed without injury to private individuals; and that land shall be given and assigned to the soldiers of the Martian legion and of the fourth legion, in the largest sharesin which land has ever been given and assigned to soldiers.23 On the whole, Octavian obtained the favor of the Caesarian troops by the adOption of Caesar's method of keeping soldiers's loyalties by the promise of land. Through those bought loyalties, he eventually won the victory. Octavian's triumph in 30 B.C. declared the final victory Of a new pattern of government--the Roman Empire. Almost everything was now changed in Rome, except the Roman's love of his land. Agriculture still was the most important basis of the Italian economy, and land was still the most desirable property for most Italians, in spite of the fact that in the early Roman Empire, trade and industry had a significant development. However, the Italian land-holding system did change in certain aspects as Roman history went on. This change not only affected Roman politics, economy, and society, but also presented an unique pattern. The discussion below will describe the land—holding system of the early Roman empire, and how this system related to other aspects of the Empire in terms of political stability, economic growth, and social mobility. FOOTNOTES--CHAPTER I 1R. Duncan-Jones, The Economy Of th: Roman Empire ,(Cambridge: University Press, 1574), p. 33. 21bid., p. 99. 3Marcus Cato, On Agriculture, Trans. by William Davis HOOper, Revised by Harrison Boyd Ash (Cambridge, Mass.: Leob Classical Library, Harvard University Press, 1934)! p- 3. 41bid., 111.3. 5E. Badian, Publicans and Sinners (New York: Cornell Press, 1976), p. 50. 6Polybius, The Historyyof Polybius, Trans. by W. R. Paton (Cambridge, Mass.: Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, 1960), 3.22-24- 71bid., 3.22-24. 8Eleanor G. Huzar, "Egyptian Influences on Roman Coinage,‘ Classical Journal 60-61, p. 338. 9Ibid., p. 339. 10Chester G. Starr, A History of Ancient World, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1974). p. 505. 11Titus Livius, Ligy, Trans. by B. 0. Foster. (Cambridge, Mass: Loeb Classical Library, Harvard Uni- versity Press, VOl. 14), Summaries, XLVIII. 12M. Rostovtzeff, Social and Economical History of the Roman Empire, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1957), p. 2. 13G. R. watson, The Roman Soldier (London: Thames and Hudson, 1969), p. 89. 16 17 14Diodorus Siculus, Diodorus of Sicily, Trans. by C. Bradford Welles (Cambridge, Mass.: Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, 1933), XIV.16; Liyy, IV. 59, gives the same report. 15Polybius, The Histories, VI,39. 16Suetonius, "Caesar,” The nglye Caesarsy- Trans. by Robert Graves, Revised by Michael Grant (New York: Penguin Classics, Penguin Book Ltd., 1979), 26. 17Appian, Appian's Roman History, Trans. by Horace White, 4 vols. (Cambridge, Mass.: .Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, 1964), V. 17. 18Plutarch, The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans (New York: The Modern Library, 1932), ”Sulla," 19rbia., p. 570. 20Cassius Dio, Dio's Roman History, Trans. by Earnest Cary, Revised by Herbert Baldwin Foster, 9 Vols. (Cambridge, Mass.: Loeb Classical Library, Harvard Uni- versity Press, 1970), XXXVIII.1. 21Cicero, Cicero's Letters to Atticus, Trans. by D. R. Shackleton Bailey (Cambridge: Penguin Classics, Cambridge University Press, 1965-1968), 19.(1.19). 22Appian, III, 41-42. 23Cicero, "The Fifth Philippic," The Orations of Cicero, Trans. by C. D. Yonge, Vol. IV (London: George Bell and Sons, York Street, Covert Garden, 1885), XIX. CHAPTER II PUBLIC LANDS Public lands belonged to the populus Romanus, the Roman State. Such land usually was cultivated by private tenants of the State.1 During the early Republican period, Rome had always converted some land conquered in the wars of conquest into public land. Such land, if distributed, was distributed only among the Roman citizens. During the Roman wars of conquest of Italy, the extent of the public land became tremendous, but by the time of Augustus, the amount of the public land in Italy was reduced, since the public land had been gradually transferred into private hands. Actually, this transfer of the public land into private hands started a long time before the Augustan Age, from the fourth century B.C. on. Many agrarian laws had been passed in Rome from time to time, and many of those laws dealt with the ager publicus, the land which belonged to the state.2 The State dealt with the public land in different ways. As Appian said, ”. . . but of the land acquired by war they assigned the cultivated part forthwith to the colonists, or sold or leased it. . . . those who were 18 19 willing to work it might do so for a toll of the yearly crOps, a tenth of the grain and a fifth of_the fruit."3 But, as Appian pointed out: 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, absorbing any adjacent strips and. their poor neighbours' allotments, partly by pur- chase under persuasion and partly by force, come to cultivate vast tracts instead of single estates, using slaves as labourers and herdsmen, lest free labourers should be drawn from agriculture into the army.4 Thus those public lands eventually fell into the rich people's hands. Although initially those who rented the public lands did not have ownership rights, as time went on, those lands gradually seemed to be the renter's prOp- erty.S Later on, this sort of problem became.very serious and caused the plebeians' anger; Rome had to adjust its land policy from time to time, and more agrarian laws were issued. The first law of real importance about the public land was the Licinian-Sextian law of 367 B.C., which pro- posed that ”nobody should hold more than 500 jugera of public land, or pasture on it more than 100 cattle or 500 sheep."6 The issuing of this law certainly implied that at the time some Romans had pastured more than 500 sheep or 100 oxen upon the public land or possessed more than 20 500 jugera of public land. Then in 232 B.C., Flaminius introduced a bill for the distribution of the Ager Gallicus and the Ager Picenus. This bill evidently was to help the plebeians obtain some public land. It naturally roused strong Opposition among the nobles, who, according to Polybius, probably already possessed those lands.7 Nevertheless, the bill eventually passed in the popular assembly. According to Livy, in 172 B.C., a revision of the holding of the land which had become state prOperty after i the Conquest of Capua in the second Punic War was ordered by the Senate.8 This land was regarded as the finest in that area, but those occupying the land had for some time failed to make the payments to the state and had regarded the land as their own. Some years later, in 133-123 B.C., the famous Gracchi brothers tried to settle the problems Of the public land, but their reform was only partial afid ended in a tragedy. Although the Romans tried through such legislation to redistribute the public land more fairly, the deteriora- tion of the public land-holding system grew worse after the Gracchi. Eventually, in 111 B.C., the Senate had to declare that all the public land which had been.in private hands became the private property of the present owners, free Of rent. From then on, the public land was rarely leased or Opened as public pasture. 21 During the civil wars, the public land-holding system suffered the final blows. As has been mentioned, almost every ambitious general or politician during that time attacked the system of public land for his own purpose, just as Marius did in 100 B.C., and Caesar did in 59 B.C. Augustus made private use of the public land even more noticeably. As Augustus himself said in his Res Gestae, he established twenty-eight colonies in Italy and he paid out about H8 600 million to buy land for his veterans in Italy.9 Tenney Frank estimates that Augustus made some 200,000 assignments of land in Italy,10 through which a great deal of the public land in Italy must have been transferred to private hands. No private owners could have offered so much land for sale, and those lands cer- tainly were not from.Augustus' own holdings. .So, much of that land could have come only from the public source, although some minor portions may have come from private sources or from confiscations. Another factor should also be noticed: Augustus brought peace to Rome. Once peace came, investment in Italian land came into vogue again, especially for Ital- ian men of wealth. As Frank points out, I'Augustus' rule was so firm that men began to feel once more that prOperty "11 Moreover, wars and in Italy was a safe investment. confiscations had been two important ways for the Romans to extend the public land. Once peace came, and confiscation 22 was stOpped by Augustus (after he had completely settled with his foes), the size of the public land could not be increased. After centuries of draining away the public land holdings, therefore, by the early Roman Empire the Roman public land was almost exhausted. What percentage of the Italian cultivatable and pasture land was public land at any particular time, we really do not know. But Duncan-Jones, basing his calcu- lation on a land list from the Ligures Baebiani inscription in southern Italy during the time of Trajan, estimates that the public land formed only 10 percent of the holdings among 66 estate-valuations. Another inscription shows that during the same period in northern Italy among 47 estate- valuations the public land made up almost a quarter (22 percent) of holdings in a list of lands owned by private individuals and the city of Veleia.12 These two inscrip- tions prove that by the time of the beginning of the second century A.D. in northern Italy public land had gradually been transferred into private hands, and in southern Italy the amount of public land was very small. We lack information about the public land holding in central Italy, but some common sense might be used for speculation. Surely, in central Italy the situation must have been even worse than in southern and northern Italy; for lands in central Italy must have been the first property people wanted to acquire, especially the lands in the areas 23 around Rome. Most of Augustus' twenty-eight colonies were located in northern Italy. If such lands had been avail- able in central Italy, his veterans would not have wanted to go to the north, even less to the provinces. The shortage of the public land was obvious, even in Augustus' lifetime; otherwise, Augustus would not-have wanted to confiscate the lands which belonged to private citizens such as Virgil in order to satisfy his veterans' land needs.13 In the peaceful reigns following that of Augustus, the confiscations and conquests had ceased; so new public lands were not acquired. Moreover, the land grants to veterans of a well organzied and stable professional army 'were regularly in the provinces rather than in Italy. Therefore, the amount of public land in Italy varied little during the first two centuries Of the empire. FOOTNOTES--CHAPTER I I 1M. I. Finley, ed., The Studies in Roman ProEerty (Cambridge, Mass.f Cambridge University Press, 1976), p. 7. 2Appian, 1, 8-10. Appian, 1, 7. 3 4Ibid. 5Livy, XXVIII, 26. 4-6. Livy also records that some valuable land north of Capua was sold to private investors shortly before the end of the Hannibul War; Kenneth D. White, "Roman Agricultural Writers,” Aufstieg und Niedergang der Rfimischen Welt, 1.4 (New York: Walter DeGruyter, 1973), pp. 39-497. 6Appian, 1, 8. 7Polybius, ii.21.7. 8Livy, XXVI, 16. 9Augustus, Res Gestae Divi Augusti, Trans. by Frederick W. Shipley (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1924), 16, 11.28. 10Tenney Frank, ed., An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, Vol. 5; Tenney Frank, Rome and Italy of thel Empire (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1940), p. 170. 11Frank, Rome and Italy of the Empire, p. 170. 12R. P. Duncan-Jones, "Some Configurations of Landholding in the Roman Empire," in W PrOperty, ed. M. I. Finley (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976). P. 7. 13Virgil, The WOrks of Virgil, Trans. by Davidson (New York: American Book Company); Georgics, 11, 198; Eclogues, 1. 71, IX. 19; see also Robert Seymour Conway, The Ver ilian A e (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1928), p. 32 24 CHAPTER III PRIVATE LAND HOLDINGS By the time of the Roman Empire, most of the Ital- ian lands were in private hands. It has been a broadly accepted theory that large private land holdings tended to increase in Italy following the last days of the Roman 1 Republic. Many peOple emphasize the importance of the large land holdings, but neglect the existence Of the small peasant farms and the mediumesized land holdings.2 When we talk about the small private land holdings, we are talking about the holdings of those Italians who owned a.small plot of land, and either depended.on their own or their family members' labors to do their field work, or during the harvest season hired a couple of helpers, or even owned a couple of slaves. This type of land owner was almost self-sufficient. Such small peasant owners had been the core members of the Roman Republic. They were still the core members of the Roman Empire, and made up the great majority of the pOpulation3 at least during the early Empire, although in many ways they were not as closely involved in military and political affairs of the state. But as a class, peasants with small farms did not 25 26 disappear, and the small land holdings also did not dis- appear, at least during the first two centuries A.D. Unfortunately, most of our sources record accounts only of prominent men, and.neglect the small ones; still some light is thrown on the small land owners and the small land holdings. For example, Varro tells us that during his time some Roman poor men still cultivated their own fields with their own labor and that of their families.4 When Horace tells his readers how wealthy land holders tried to destroy the small farmers in Italy, his story at least proves that there were some small farmers with their own lands, whom the well-to-do were trying to attack. And, in fact, Horace does draw a very charming picture of Italian farm life, and portrays the farmer who was the lord of his own land which had been in his family possibly for generations.5 Inscriptions also offer some information. In the land list of Ligures Baebiani, among the 66 estate- valuations, 14 percent of the poorest still owned 3.6 per- cent Of land;6 and in the Veleia list of valuation of 47 estates in northern Italy, 23.9 percent of the poorest farmers owned 5.1 percent of the land.7 Certainly, comparing these percentages of the amount of land and the number of the poorest population, we find that the poorest farmers' land holdings were very small. Moreover, under the early Empire, veterans' land holdings formed a great part of the number of small farms. 27 Reasonably, since every year so many soldiers were dis- charged from the legions, the land allotment assigned to an individual soldier could.not be large, especially in Italy. M. I. Finley suggests that a Caesarian veteran with 8 Frank three children received only ten jugera Of land. argues that since Augustus' final pension scheme.was based on bonuses of about 12,000 sesterces, his land allotment could not have exceeded eight to ten jugera.9 Duncan-Jones studied a land list in northern Africa and found that the average estate-size of veterans was only about 15-17 jugera, and he suggests that this size may be the standard estate- 10 There were twenty-eight colonies size for veterans. which were founded by Augustus for his veterans in Italy, and thousands of veterans obtained a plot of assigned Italian land. These grants, together with the holdings .Of other’small land owners, indicate that the importance of the small land holdings in Italy must not be neglected. Scholars such as M. I. Finley propose that under the early Empire, the middle range of landed prOperty is 11 also worth study. What type of land holdings should be regarded as the middle range? There is no certain size for it. Probably Horace's estate which provided the poet a comforatble life and eight slaves could be counted 12 as one of the middle range. Such kind of land holding was more than those self-sufficient small holdings, but 28 much less than those large holdings which were worth mil- lions of sesterces. The farms around Pompeii provide another example well worth study by modern archaeology. According to Frank, Carrington, in his study of the Pompeian farms, suggests that using the evidence of the farm.at Boscoreale, which had the largest number of wine jars (about 80 jars, which could hold only about 160 calle of wine: about 84,000 liters, evidently the vintage for one year), one can estimate that the vineyard could hardly have been over forty jugera.' More likely, it did not exceed ten to fifteen jugera.13 ° Concerning the large private land holdings under the early Empire, a range of questions needs to be con- sidered. Although large private land holdings tended to increase during the early Empire, we should be careful about over stressing such holdings in Italy. Italy was the place where almost every Italian wanted to own a plot of land. After centuries of land distributions and redis- tributions in Italy, it was very hard to concentrate lands into only a few peOple's hands. This may be why many big land holders owned their landed prOperties, not in one region, but in several different areas, in Italy and even in the provinces. Additionally, those big land owners' properties in Italy (if we do not include the imperial properties) usually were obtained either from inheritances 29 or through marriages and then were extended by purchases.14 In this way, land was difficult to concentrate. Normally a family's property would be shared by children, especially by sons;0the Romans also liked to use landed property as dowry for their daughters. As always, we should be concerned about the relia- bility of sources, especially how seriously we can depend "15 which is on the famous 'Latifundia perdidere Italian, quoted most by people who stress the role of large private land holdings in Italian agriculture. It is not wise to neglect the tendency toward latifundia in Italy, but it is doubtful whether it was as serious as Pliny the Elder says. Actually, it is quite possible, as Duncan-Jones suggests, that the elder Pliny's much-discussed description of great estates as being the ruin of Italy was in large part an expression of his dislike of cultivation by chained slaves. Certainly in the rest of Pliny the Elder's thirty-seven books, he says hardly anything to prove this single quo- tation. Other ancient agricultural authors such as Varro and Columella do not mention such a problem. Pliny the Elder's view may have been based on ”a moralist's feeling more than an historian or an economist's judgment."16 Overall, precise dating is important in considering the evidence for latifundia in Italy, certainly latifundia were more extensive in the later Empire. However, the first 30 serious symptoms of the decline of Italian agriculture and the growth of latifundia appeared with the Punic wars. Especially after the second Punic war, the depOpulation of many districts gave a number of rich nObles the opportuni- ties of extending their estates. Various other causes sub- sequently contributed to the extension of the latifundia. As a result of the Roman conquests, there were large tracts of land in southern Italy and other regions for distribu- 17 and, as always, the Patricians were highly favored. tion; The appearance of latifundia also was due to the importation of cheap grain into Italy from Sicily and northern Africa, as Rome conquered the areas. And it was due to the wider adoption of slave laborers in agriculture. On the whole, since the last century of the Roman Republic, large private land holdings were being gradually formed in Italy and in the provinces. And most of the large private land holdings were in the senatorial aristocracy's hands. Duncan-Jones, in a list of the size Of private fortunes under the early Roman Empire. (See Appendix.) gives us a clear picture of who the big land owners were.18 The gradual concentration of landed prOperty in Italy is proved by some inscriptions, but those inscriptions mostly are dated in the second century A.D., not the first century A.D. For example, the inscription of 57 estate valuations from Ligures Baebiani dated in 101 A.D. tells 31 us that at the tOp of the scale 3.5 percent of the land- owners owned 21.3 percent of the land, and the wealthiest single individual owned 11.2 percent of the land. At the bottom, the poorest 14 percent owned only 3.6 percent of the land.19 On the Veleian land-list which also was dated in Trajan's time, at the tOp of the scale, the biggest private estate accounted for 12.4 percent of the wealth, while at the bottom 23.9 percent of the owners accounted for only 5.1 percent of the land among 47 estate.valua- tions.20 Moreover, Tenney Frank estimates that the Veleian inscription of 671 lines contained the Offers of fifty-two owners to mortgage property valued at some 13,500,000 sesterces; the average value was, therefore, almost 260,000 sesterces and the average farm size would have been about 130 jugera. The largest of the estates that were worth 1,600,000 sesterces, several of the small ones were worth about 50,000 sesterces. The Veleian inscription also shows a very important fact, that in about a hundred years 323 separate farms had been concentrated into the hands of 21 This well exemplified the trend toward fifty-two owners. land concentration and the growth of Latifundia. A fragment of another inscription which was found at Beneventum,offers additional evidence that eighty-nine original properties had fallen into the hands of fifty owners, and one man had gained the ownership of eleven farms. The largest farm recorded there was valued at 32 500,000 sesterces. Twelve were between that sum and 100,000; seventeen between 100,000 and.50,000; and.twenty between 50,000 and 15,000. Frank estimates that at ordinary land values, the farms mentioned in that inscription would range from about 6 to 200 Jugera, about 4 to 130 acres.22 And, Frank points out that, as usual,this inscription did not record the smaller farms or small garden plots which surely existed around those big estates. Actually, ancient agricultural authors hardly tell us about the size of estates. Our information from them is very fragmentary and meager. The earliest information about the large private land holding comes from Cicero and Varro at the end of the Republic. In a letter to Atticus, Cicero mentions that ”C. Albanius a very close neighbour Of his brought 1,000: jugera of land from M. Pilius for Hs. 23 Varro writes that a Roman knight, Gaberius 24 11,500,000.“ had a place containing 1,000 jugera near the city. Then Horace mentions an estate of this size at Falerii in his Epode '. . . by the magistrate's command, with corn a thousand acres load. . . ."25 A couple of smaller estates also appear in the ancient agricultural writers. Varro mentions a 200 jugera estate at Reate which belonged to a 26 senator named Q. Axius. Pliny the Elder records that one of the.vineyards at Nomentum.owned by Acilius Sthenelus during Nero's reign was 60 jugera, and another vineyard 33 of AOilius Sthenelus at Nomentum,which later was bought 27 by Seneca, was about 360 jugera. He also paid about 1,600,000 sesterces for Palaemon's vineyard of about 230 28 In sum, it is recorded that jugera near Nomentum. Seneca owned prOperties worth 300,000,000 sesterces, much of which lay in Italian and provincial estates.' Of our famous ancient agricultural authors, Varro certainly was a sizeable farm owner; Columella was an owner Of several estates in three different areas; and Pliny the Elder was a large land owner, from whom Pliny the Younger inherited a part of his property; finally, Pliny the Younger was the owner of at least two big estates. Modern scholars like to prove the trend toward land concentration through the comparison of the different work loads and manpower ratios of Cato and other later ancient writers, like Columella. For example, Frank suggests that for the olive orchard, Colwmella assumes ninety laborers as necessary.29 Since Cato needed but fourteen.for an orchard of 240 Jugera, Columella seems to posit a standard orchard 30 Such comparisons might help us in of about 1500 Jugera. some ways to see the different ideas of those ancient writers about management, but whether it could indicate the increase of land concentration is a debatable question,. since Cato and Columella lived in two different ages. Although in ancient times agricultural technique 34 did not develop as quickly as in modern times, during the course of 200 years of the Roman conquest over the Medi- terranean world and the assimilation of the Hellenistic cultures, the Italian agricultural technique certainly develOped in certain aspects. In Cato's time, although he mentions slave laborers in his On Agriculture,31 slave laborers in agriculture were not as common as in Columella's time. Moreover, in Columella's time, some chained slaves were used in agri- culture. Such slave laborers certainly had less devotion to work than a freeman; and a slave's productivity was lower than that of a freeman. But, when we compare work loads and man-power ratios haCato and in later agricul- tural authors, we have to consider the soil, weather, and other regional differences. Columella, himself, under- stood these differences very well, saying that a good . farmer should "study zealously the manuals of the ancients, gauging the opinions and teachings of each of them, to see whether the records handed down by his forefathers are suited in their entirely to the husbandry of his day or are out of keeping in some respects. For I have found that many authorities now worthy of remembrance were convinced that with the long wasting of the ages, weather n32 and climate undergo a change; . . . In still another paragraph, Columella notes an instance for 35 "Tremelius, who though he brings this very charge, provides the excuse that the soil and the climate of Italy and Africa, being of a different nature, cannot produce the 33 same results." Columella also suggests that people should be willing to learn from their ancestors, for in the works of the ancients far more was found to merit their approval than their rejection.34 P Therefore, our epigraphic and literary sources which refer to the large private land holdings give us chiefly some general pictures. Our only information pro- viding details for an individual large land holder was about Pliny the Younger in the early second century A.D. In general, Pliny the Younger was not the richest senator of the early Roman Empire. His estates lay only in Italy, whereas other senators owned landed prOperties not only in Italy, but also in the provinces. From his own com- ments, Pliny the Younger might have possessed about He. 35 and like most Roman aristocrats he drew his 17 million, main wealth from.landed properties. Several other con- temporary senators, such as Cn. Cornelius Lentulus, Q. Vibius Crispus, L. Annaeus Seneca, and Passienus Crispus had their properties in hundreds of millions of sesterces.36 Nevertheless, Pliny the Younger was a typical example of an Italian large private land owner. His land holding was obtained by a combination of marriages and inheritances. 36 His family belonged to the landed municipal gentry of 37 He Comum in the Cisalpine region of North Italy. inherited one ”equestrian fortune" from his uncle, Pliny the Elder, two "municipal fortunes" from his father and mother, and his three marriages surely enlarged his prop- erties. Like many Italian large-land owners, Pliny the Younger owned properties in different regions. One of his letters tells us that he owned several estates near Lake 38 He Como, besides those he inherited from his parents. also owned property near Tifernum Tiberinum, a town in umbria, and his prOperty at Tifernum brought in more than 400,000 sesterces per year in the early reign of Trajan.39 In addition, he owned villas and houses near Rome or in other Italian regions, and hundreds of slaves and had hundreds of freedmen. Moreover, his landed property and the wealth which was drawn from the property not only pro- vided him a rich life, but also secured his position in the senatorial rank. Remember, even in the second century A.D., landed prOperty still was one of the essential qualification of a senator. We may now conclude that along with the growth of the land concentration in Italy during the first two cen- tury A.D., small and middle range land holdings existed, and they were the base of the Italian economy. Large land holding, although it had increased since the last century of the Roman Republic, did not become prominent until the 37 40 according to our sources. And, more second century A.D. importantly, the role of large land holding in the Italian agriculture should not be exaggerated during the early Rome Empire. More information is required to prove its real significance. FOOTNOTES--CHAPTER III 1Columella wrote chiefly for large land holders. Frank, An Economic Surve , Vol. v, pp. 168 & 174; Duncan Jones, Tfie Economy of tfie Roman Empire, pp. 343-44. 2Ramsay MacMullen, "Peasants During the Principate," Aufstieg und Niedergang der ROmischen Welt, II, I, pp. 253- 261. 31bid., p. 253. 4Varro, On Agriculture, Trans. by William Davis Hooper, Revised by Harrison Boyd Ash, (Cambridge, Mass.: Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, 1934), I, 17, 2. 5Horace, The Complete Works of Horace, ed. with an introduction by Casper J. Kraemer Jr. (New York: Modern Library, 1936), p. 89, E odes, 2. 6Finley, ed., Studies in Roman Property, p. 15. 7Ibid., p. 16. 8M. I. Finley, The Ancient Econom (Berkeley: University of California Press, 19 , p. 105. 9 Frank, An Economic Survey, Vol. 5, p. 170. 10Finley, ed., Studies in Roman Property, p. 15. 11Finley, The Ancient Economy, p. 105. 12Horace, The Complete WOrk of Horace, Epistles 1.14. 13Frank, An Economic Survey, Vol. 5, p. 172. 14Duncan-Jones, Economy of the Roman Empire, p. 323. 1Spriny the Elder, N.H. 18.35. 16Duncan-Jones, Economy of the Roman Empire, p. 323. 38 39 . 17I