No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 May 2015
Agrarian legislation in the immediate aftermath of the Gracchi is the subject of continuing debate. Appian (BC i 27) records three laws, the last two of which are specified as being tribunician: the first removed the inalienability of land holdings; the second was perhaps the measure of Sp. Thorius, mentioned also by Cicero, which stopped land distribution, confirmed possession rights on the land and imposed a rent, the proceeds of which were to help the poor; the third abolished this rent. Appian provides chronological clues of a sort: the first measure came ‘not long after’ the death of C. Gracchus, the third ‘not long after’ Thorius’ law, and the whole business was perhaps finished within fifteen years άπò τῆς Γράκχου νομοϑεσίας. I say ‘perhaps’ because it remains arguable whether the point of reference for these fifteen years is Tiberius or Gaius Gracchus. I intend to argue elsewhere that Tiberius is meant, but as such an argument cannot be regarded as conclusive, there is still a point in this respect in examining the lex agraria which is the inscription CIL i2 585. The law is naturally important in its own right. It is dated internally to 111 B.C. and attempts have been made to equate it with either the second or third of Appian’s laws. If it was the second, this allows a retention of the fifteen years and the placing of the third law in 109 or 108. But if Appian has accurately reported the second law, it imposed a rent, while the first part of the inscriptional law talks of removing rent.
1 I do not believe it is absolutely necessary to emend Appian’s text to include Thorius, though many have insisted on this; see Badian, E. ‘From the Gracchi to Sulla,’ Historia 11 (1962), 211;Google ScholarGabba, E.Appiani bellorum civilium liber primus2 (Firenze, 1967), pp.93f.;Google ScholarGruen, E.Roman Politics and the Criminal Courts 149–78 B.C. (Harvard 1968),p.102Google Scholar n. 116. Also Douglas, A.E.M. Tulli Ciceronis Brutus (Oxford, 1966), pp.247ff.;Google Scholar who believes Appian meant Thorius, but made an erroneous connexion between him and the second law; for he believes Thorius’ law removed rent and may be the inscriptional law.
2 For Gaius see Badian, 211; Gruen, p. 101 n. 115; Gabba, E.Appiano e la storia delle guerre civili (Firenze, 1956),pp.64ff.;Google Scholar For Tiberius, D’Arms, E.F. ‘The Date and Nature of the Lex Thoria’ AJPh 56 (1935), 232ff.;Google ScholarCarcopino, J.Autour des Gracques2 (Paris, 1967),p.272Google Scholar n. 64; Douglas, pp. 249 f.
3 See Badian, 211 f.
4 Gruen, p. 102; for arguments that the lex Thoria did indeed impose rent see Badian, ‘The Lex Thoria: a Reconsideration’ Studies in Greek and Roman History (Oxford, 1964),pp.235ff.;Google ScholarBut cf. Douglas’ argument to the contrary (above n. 1). MRR i 542 n. 3 ponders a different emendation of Appian.
5 Gabba, Appiano e la storia, pp. 63, 72; Gruen, p. 102; Badian, of course, was not convinced. Nor am I. The fifteen years in Sallust seem very odd in their own right, so much so that I wonder if the text is sound.
6 Q. Fabius Sanga is not qualified as a patrician at Broughton.MRR ii 490, but as he is described at Sallust, Cat. 41 (‘cuius patrocinio civitas plurimum utebatur’), he must be the heir to the patronage begun by Q. Fabius Maximus Allobrogicus, cos. 121.
7 The matter of prominence will be dealt with below.
8 Taylor, L.R.The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic (Rome, 1960), p.212.Google Scholar
9 The classical citation in support of this is Laelius Felix, apud Gellius, NA xv 27.4, where we are told that the tribunes cannot call patricians or refer to them on any matter.
10 ‘Comitia Tributa Plebis’; Athenaeum 53 (1975), 336.
11 ‘Comitia Tributa Again’, Athenaeum 55 (1977), 425 f.
12 For a plebeian example see the lex Antonia de Termessibus (CIL i2 589); cf. U. Hall, ’Voting Procedure in Roman Assemblies’, Historia 13 (1964), 227 n. 36.
13 ‘The Role of the First Voter in Roman Legislative Assemblies’, Historia 18 (1969),513 ff.
14 The last clause is shown in the reading of the codices, which is emended in the Oxford text; the problem need not concern us.
15 Cf. Rotondi, G.Leges publicae populi Romani (Milano, reprint Hildesheim,1966), p.391.Google Scholar
16 Cf. Suet.DJ
17 So indeed Staveley, Greek and Roman Voting and Elections (London, 1972), p. 150; the plebeian magistrates were not included in the lex curiata which bestowed auspicia, on which see my ‘Lex curiata and the Competence of Magistrates’, Mnemosyne4 30 (1977), 49 ff. Would a magistrate with auspicium presiding over a plebeian assembly, as indeed happened in aedilician elections, take auspices? It is possible.
18 Cf. Staveley, p. 150.
19 On all this see ‘The Third Century Reform of the Comitia Centuriata’, Athenaeum (forthcoming).
20 On these passages see Athenaeum (above n. 19); it is doubtful that at de leg. ag. ii 2.4 Cicero wrote ‘extrema tribus suffragiorum’; rather read ‘diribitio’.
21 .xxix 37.13.
22 .Appian, BC i 59.266, on which set Athenaeum (above n. 19).
23 Historia 18 (1969), 519 f.