Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T22:01:54.438Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

I. The History of Rome and Italy in the Second Century B.C.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2011

A. H. McDonald
Get access

Extract

The seventy-five years from the Second Punic War to the legislation of Tiberius Gracchus were critical years in the history of Rome. Within this period Rome imposed her will on the Hellenistic world and brought the West under her sway. The foundations of the Empire were laid in these years. Yet the period closes with violence and blood-shed in Rome herself and the seeds of civil war in Italy. The strain of conquest and the immensity of success disturbed the stability which had made the victory possible. Imperial rule called for changes in administration; deep economic movements began to touch the life of the people; but the strength of tradition, political and social, and the dominance of the Senate limited their range of vision. The result was to provoke, whether or not it was justified, an attempt at revolutionary reform.

Type
Articles
Information
Cambridge Historical Journal , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , 1939 , pp. 124 - 146
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1939

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 Neumann, Gesck[ichte] Roms [während des Verfalles der Repuilik], c. I; Mommsen Hist[ory of] Rome [(1901)], Book III, cc. 7, 11–14; Greenidge, Hist[ory of] Rome, I, c, 1; Heitland, Rom[an] Repub[lic]11, c 34; Rostovtzetf, Soc[ial and] Econ[omic] Hist[ory of the Roman Empire], c. 1; Frank, Econ[omic] Hist[ory of Rome], cc. 6–7; Bloch and Carcopino, Hist[[oire] rom[aine (Histoire ancienne, III)], II, cc. 1–6; Last, C[ ambridge] A[ncient] H[istory], IX, c.1

2 The basis of detailed study is now (in addition to Bloch and Careopino, loc.cit. Sanctis, De, St[oria dei] Rom[ani]IV i, cc. 1–4Google Scholar(foreign affairs); c. 5 (constitutional developments); Helleaux, , Rome, [la Grèce et les monarchies hellémistiques] C.A.H. VIII, cc. 6–7Google Scholar(Eastern policy); Frank, , C.A.H VIII, cc. 11–12Google Scholar(Rome and Italy); Colin, Rome [et la Grièce] (Hellenism in Rome); Heichelheim, , Wirtschaftsgesch[ichte des Altertums], c. 7Google Scholar; Heitland, ,Agricola, 151seq.Google Scholar; Frank, , Econ[omic] Sur[vey of Ancient Rome], I, cc. 3–4Google Scholar. Full bibliography in C.A.H, VIII, 730 seq.; Frank, , Econ. Sur. I, 414 seq.Google Scholar; Heichelheim, , Wirtschaftsgesch. 1061Google Scholar.

3 Sanctis, De, Atene e Roma (N.S.), 1 (1920),3 seq., 73 seq.Google Scholar; St. Rom, IV, i, 407 seq., 441 seq.

4 Frank, , C.A.H. VIII, 334 seq.Google Scholar; Econ. Sur. 1, 98 seq.

5 Mattingly, and Robinson, , [The] Date [of the] Rom[an] Den[arius], 13seqGoogle Scholar.

6 Holleaux, , Rome, 306 seq.Google Scholar; Griffith, , C[ambridge] H[istorical] J[ournal], v (1935), 1seq.Google Scholar; McDonald, and Walbank, , J[ournal of] R[oman] S[tudies], XXVII (1937), 180seqGoogle Scholar.

7 livy XXXI, 6, 3–8, I.

8 Livy XXXI, 13, 2–9.

9 livy XXXI, 2, 5–11; 10, 1–11, 3.

10 Sanctis, De, St. Rom. IV i, 442–3Google Scholar.

11 Livy XXXI, 4, 1–3; 49, s; XSXII, 1, 6. Appian, Bell. civ. I, 7: s. Frank, CA.H. win, 335–6; Bam. Smr. 1, H I seq., 124 seq.i Last, CAM. ix, 17–18.

12 Sanctis, De, St. Rom. IV, i, 94 seq., 413 seq,, 445 seqGoogle Scholar.

13 Cf. Frank, , C.A.H VIII, 341–2Google Scholar.

14 Frank, , Econ. Sur. I, 175 seqGoogle Scholar.

15 Livy XXXIV, 56, 5–6: “pro numero cuiusque iuniorum”.

16 Livy XXXV, 7, 1–5. Cf. Sanctis, De, St. Rom. IV, i, 564Google Scholar.

17 Sanctis, De, St. Rom. IV, i, 120seq,Google Scholar; Holleaux, , C.A.H. VIII, 199 seq.Google Scholar; Bickermann, , Hermes, LXVII (1932), 47 seqGoogle Scholar.

18 Livy XXXVII, 50, 1–13. Sanctis, De, St. Rom. IV, i, 156, 211Google Scholar.

19 Livy XXXIX, 3, 4–6. This passage is to be compared with Livy XLI, 8, 7, where the initiative of the allies and the military aspect of the case are indicated (cf. below, p. 132).Frank, , C.A.H. VIII, 355–6;Google ScholarSalmon, , J.R.S. XXVI (1936), 56Google Scholar.

20 Cf. Sanctis, De, St. Rom. IV, i, 560seq., 569Google Scholar; Bloch, and Carcopino, , Hist. rom. II, 139–40Google Scholar.

21 The basis of study here is now Salmon, , J.R.S, XXVI (1936), 47seqGoogle Scholar.

22 Puteoli, Volturnum, litenum, Salernum, Buxentum, Sipontum, Tempsa, Croton (194); Copia (193); Vibo Valentia (192): livy XXXII, 29, 3–4; XXXIV, 45, 1–5; 53, 1–2; XXXV, 9, 7–8; 40, 5–6; Velleius 1, 1 4, 8; 15, 3; Salmon, ,J.R.S. XXVI (1936), 51-3Google Scholar, cf. Griffith, , C.M.J. v (1935), 11seqGoogle Scholar

23 Placentia, Cremona: Livy XXXI, 10, 3; XXXII, 26, 3; XXXIII, 23, 1, 6; XXXIV, 22, 3; XXXVII, 46, 9–47, 2. Bononia (18); Mutina, Parma (183): Livy XXXVII, 47, 2; 57, 7–8; XXXIX, 55, 7–8; Velleius l, 15, 2; Sanctis, De, St. ROM. IV, i, 416Google Scholar; Salmon, , J.R.S XXVI (1936),54Google Scholar

24 The commission for the founding of Luca was appointed in 180 (livy XL, 43, 1), and, allowing for the normal time of about two years for its work (cf Careopino, , Autour des Gracques, 137–9)Google Scholar, we may date its foundation to 178; the record may haw stood under this year in the lost part of Livy XLI. Velleius 1, 15, 2 (177) has miscalculated. After Salmon's explanation of the ius duodecim coloniarum (J.R.S. XXVI (1936), 58–61)Google Scholar, there is no reason to reject the record of Luea (as Salmon, , C[lassical] Q[uarterly], XXVII (1933), 30–5). Luna (177): livy XLI, 13, 4–5Google Scholar.

25 Pisaurum, Potentia (184); Saturnia.(183); Graviscae (181); Livy XXXIX, 44, 10;55, 9; XL, 29, 1–2; Velleius 1, 15, 2. Salmon, , J.R.S. XXVI (1936), 53Google Scholar.

26 Livy XXXIX, 55 5–6 (183); XL 34, 2–3 (181); Velleius 1, 15, 2. Salmon, , J.R.S XXVI (1936). 54–5-Google Scholar

27 As Sanctis, De, St. Rom. IV, i, 589–90;Google ScholarFrank, , C.A.H. VIII, 332, 353, 374Google Scholar. See Salmon, , J.R.S. XXVI (1936), 66Google Scholar.

28 As Salmon, , J.R.S. XXVI (1936), 66–7Google Scholar. The census figures (234 B.c.: 270,713; 194 B.C: 143,704; 189 B.C.:258,318; 179 B.c: 258,794) do, in fact, show a return to normal in 189, maintained in 179.

29 2000 men with 5 iugera at Mutina and 8 iugera at Parma (livy XXXIX, 55,7);2000 men with 6½ iugera at Luna (livy XLI, 13, 4–5: reading VIS for LIS).

30 Livy XXXIX, 55, 5: “nee satis constabat utrum Latinam an civium Romanorum deduci placeret”; XL, 34, 2; XLIII, 17, 1. Cf. Sanctis, De, St. Rom. IV, i, 428-9Google Scholar.

31 Mattingly, and Robinson, , Date Rom. Den. 18seqGoogle Scholar.

32 Livy XXXIII, 3, 2–7; XXXIV, 56, 9; Malcovati, , Or. Rom. frag. 1Google Scholar, “Cato”, 1, fr. 20–1.

33 Livy XXXVII, 32, 11–14.

34 livy XXXVIII, 33, 4; 44, 9–50, 3; XXXIX, 6, 3–7, 5.

35 Cicero, , de repub. II, 31, 54Google Scholar; Malcovati, , Or. Rom. frag. 1Google Scholar “Cato”, XXVI, fr. 137; Sanctis, De, St. Rom. IV, i, 530–1;Google ScholarBloch, and Carcopino, , Hist. rom. II, 145–6Google Scholar.

36 McDonald, , J.R.S. XXVII (1938), 160seqGoogle Scholar.

37 Livy XXXIX, 7, 5: “senatus consultum factum est ut ex pecunia quae in triumpho translata esset stipendium collatum a populo in publicum, quod eius solutum antea non esset, solveretur. vicenos quinos et semisses in milia aeris…solverunt.”

38 Mattingly, and Robinson, , Date Rom. Den. 4seq., 19 seq.Google Scholar; against Milne, , J.R.S. XXIV (1934), 61–3Google Scholar; XXVIII (1938), 70 seq.

39 Pliny, , N.H. 33, 10, 138:Google Scholar “populus Romanus stipem spargers coepit Sp. Postumie Q. Marcio cos. [i.e. 186 B.C], tanta abundantia pecuniae erat ut earn conferret L. Scipioni ex qua is ludos fecit” (cf. Livy XXXIX, 22, 8).

40 Livy XXXVIII, 28, 4; 36, 5–6. On the position of the Campanians, see Sanctis, De, St. Rom. III, ii, 342seq.Google Scholar; IV, i, 588.

41 livy XXXVIII, 36, 7–9. Frank, , C.A.H. VIII, 346–8;Google ScholarEcon. Sur. 1, 175 seq.

42 Livy XL, 42, 13 (180 B.C.).

43 Plutarch, , Titus 18, 1,Google Scholar

44 Livy XXXVIII, 36, 8.

45 Livy XXXIX, 8, 1–19, 7; cf 29, 9; 41, 5–7. C.I.L. I2, 581; Dessau, , I.L.S. 18Google Scholar. Cf. Sanctis, De, St. Rom. IV, i, 565–6;Google ScholarFrank, , C.Q. XXI (1927), 128seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; C.A.H. VIII, 351–2.

46 11. 22 seq.: “Haicc utei in coventionid exdeicatis ne minus trinum noundinum, senatuosqne sententiam utei scientes esetis,—eorum sententia its fuit: ‘sei ques esent, quel arvorsum ead fecisent, quam suprad scriptnm est, eeis rein caputalem faciendam censuere’—atque utei hoce in tabolam ahenam inceideretis, ita senatus aiquom censuit, uteique earn figier ioubeatis ubei facilumed gnoscier potisit.” See Fraenkel, , Hermes, LXVII (1932), 369seq.Google Scholar; cf. Keil, , Hermes, LXVIII (1933), 306seq.Google Scholar; Krause, , Hermes, LXXI (1936), 214seq.Google Scholar; Gelzer, , Hermes, LXXI (1936), 275seq.Google Scholar; Accame, , Riv[ista di] fil[ologia] (N.S.), XVI (1938), 225seqGoogle Scholar.

47 Accame, , Riv. fil. (N.S.), XVI (1938), 231–2Google Scholar; against Franenkel, , Hermes, LXVII (1932), 393–4Google Scholar.

48 Livy XXXIII, 42, 10; XXXV, 10, 11–12.

49 Frank, , C.A.H. VIII, 341–2;Google ScholarEcon. Sur. 1, 158 seq.; Block, and Carcopino, , Hist. rom. II, 161seqGoogle Scholar

50 Livy XXXIX, 44, 5–7 (1000 talents, cf. Acilius, fr. 6 (Peter): DIONYS. 3, 67, 5); Frank, , C.A.H. VIII, 346seq., 384 seq.Google Scholar; Econ. Sur. 1, 175 seq.; cf. Livy XXXIX, 3, 6 (187): “iam turn multitudine alienigenarum urben onerante”.

51 Livy XL, 51,8. Frank, , Econ. Sur. I, 140, 200 seqGoogle Scholar.

52 Livy XLI, 8, 6–12; 9, 9–12; XLII, 10, 3. Frank, , C.A.H. VIII, 354–6Google Scholar; cf. Sanctis, De, St. Rom. IV, i, 569 70Google Scholar; Bloch, and Carcopino, , Hist. rom. II, 139–41Google Scholar.

53 Iivy XLI, 8, 8.

54 Sanctis, De, St. Rom. IV, i, 419seq., 428 seq., 454 seq.; on the plague, cf. Livy XL, 19 3–7; 26, 5; 36, 14; XLI, 5, 11; 21, 5–11Google Scholar

55 Livy XXXIX, 38, 6–12; XL, I, 4; 16, 9; 35, 7; 39, 4; 40, 14; 41, 8–11; XLI, 10,6–10.

56 Flamininus (194): 250 asses (Livy XXXIV, 52, 11); L. Scipio (189); 25 denarii (Livy XXXVII, 59, 6); Fulvius Nobilior (187): 25 denarii (Livy XXXIX, 5, 17); Manlius Vulso (187): 42 denarii (Livy XXXIX, 7, 2); Fulvius Flaccns (180): 50 denarii (Livy XL, 43. 7); Fulvius Flaccus (179):300 asses (Livy XL, 59, 2), even when there had been no spoil in money; Gracchus and Aibinus (178): 25 denarii (Livy XLI, 7, 3). These donatives are the same for allies as for Romans. Claudius Pulcher (177): 15 denarii to Romans, half to allies (Livy XLI, 13,7-8), presumably on account of the need to meet the legionaries' demands from limited spoil. The Latins receive their full share again with Aemilius Paullus (167): 100 denarii (Livy XLV, 40, 5), and Anicius (167): 45 denarii (Livy XLV, 43. 7: “soclis nominis Latini quantum civibus”). Cf. Frank, , Econ. Sur.. I, 147Google Scholar.

57 livy XXXIX, 38, 3; 39, 1–15; XL, 19, 9; 29, 3–14; 37, 1–7; 43, 2–3; Pliny, , N.H. 13, 84Google Scholar; Plutarch, , Numa, 38Google Scholar.

58 Livy, 19,11; 44,2. Münzer, , Röm[ische] Adelsparteien [und Adelsfamilien], 198n.1Google Scholar

59 Livy XL, 44, 1. Mommsen, , Röm[isches] Staatsrecht, I 3, 527seq.Google Scholar; Sanctis, De, St. Rom. IV i, 509–11;Google ScholarBloch, and Carcopino, , Hist. rom. II, 43–4Google Scholar. For the need cf. Livy XXXIX, 32, 5–13; 39, 1–15

60 Malcovati, , Or. Rom. frag. 1Google Scholar, “Cato”, XXXII, fr. 142–5- Cf. Livy XLI, 10, 5–13; Cicero, , de off. I, 10,Google Scholar

61 Livy XXXIX, 32, 5–13; 39, 1–15; 42, 5–43, 5; 44. 9; XL, 44. 10–12; 45, 6–46, 16; 51, 1; Plutarch, , Cato[maior] 16–19Google Scholar. Cf. Sanctis, De, St. Rom. IV, i, 600seqGoogle Scholar.

62 Livy XXXIX, 44, 7–8; Plutarch, , Cato, 19.Google ScholarFrank, , Econ. Sur. I, 149–50Google Scholar. With this may be connected Cato's proposal ut plura aera equestria fierent (Malcovati, , Or. Rom. frag. 1Google Scholar, “Cato”, XVII, fr. 103–4 ); Janzer, Historische Untersuchungen zu den Redenfragmenten des M. Porcius Cato, 37–9.

63 Livy XXXIX, 44, 5–7 (cf. above, n. 50); XL, 51, 2–7 (a year's vectigal, cf. Licy XL, 46, 16). Frank, , Econ. Sur. I, 184–5Google Scholar.

64 Livy XL, 51,9: “mutarant suffragia regionatimque generibus hominum causisque et quaestibus tribus descripserunt.” Sanctis, De, St. Rom.. IV, i, 606Google Scholar. On the state of the Comitia Centuriata (after the reform of 241 B.C.), see Sanctis, De, St. Rom. III, i, 353seq.Google Scholar, and Bloch, and Carcopino, , Hist. rom. II, 17seqGoogle Scholar.

65 Livy XLV, 15, 1–2: for discussion of this passage, see below, n. 96, and cf. n. 75.

66 Sanctis, De, St. Rom. IV, i, 606:Google Scholar “una concessione alla borghesia dei negozlanti, Industriali, affaristi, impiegati che si moltiplicava in Roma”.

67 Livy XLI, 27, 5–13; XLII, 1, 6; 8, 4; 9, 7; 19, 1–2.

68 Livy XLI, 27, 13; XLII, 10, 4; XLIII, 16, 2–16; XLIV, 16, 8; XLV, 15, 8. Frank, , Econ. Sur. I, 150Google Scholar.

69 Fasti cons. ad 172 B.C.: “ambo priml de plebe”.

70 Alcaeus and Philiscus were expelled in 173 or 154 (Athenaeus 12, 68, p. 547), probably in 173, before the general expulsion of 161 (cf. below, p. 140).

71 livy XLII, 3,1-11; 7, 3–9, 6; 10, 5; 10, 9–15; 21, 1–22,8; 28,12. Cf. XLII, 1,6-12.

72 Livy XLIII, 2, 1–12; cf. also Livy XLIII, 3, 1–4.

73 Livy XLII, 4, 3–4 {173); cf. XLI, 16, 8. Romans received 10 iugera, Latins 3 iugera; they were no doubt mainly veterans from the armies of Claudius Pulcher and Gracchus, the legionaries being satisfied before distribution to the allies.

74 Strabo 4,6, 12 (quoting Polybius). Mattingly, and Robinson, , Date Rom. Den. 22–3Google Scholar.

75 Livy XLI, 17, 1–4; 28, 8–10; Plutarch, , Ti. Gracchus 1Google Scholar; cf. Festus 428 L: “Sardi venales, alius alie nequior”. Livy XLV, 15, 1, with n. 96 below; cf. above, p. 134.

76 Sanctis, De, St. Rom. IV, i, 270seq.Google Scholar; cf. Livy XLII, 30, 8–31, 5; 32, 6.

77 Livy XLII, 32, 7–35, 2; XLIII, 11, 10; 14, 7.

78 Cf. Livy, , Per. XLIIIGoogle Scholar; XLIII, 1, 4–12; 4, 5–13; 5, 1–10; 6, 2–3; 7, 5–8, 10.

79 livy XLIII, 16, 1–16.

80 Livy XLIV, 17, 4–10; 21, 1–22, 15; 34, 1–9; C.I.L. 12, p. 194; Polybius XXIX, 1; Plutarch, , Aemilius 10–11Google Scholar; Justinus 33, 1, 6.

81 Livy XLV, 35, 5–42, 1; Plutarch, , Aemilius 30–8.Google Scholar

82 Livy XLV, 40, 1; Velleius 1, 9, 6; Diodorus 31, 8,11; Plutarch, , Aemilius 32–3,38;Google ScholarPliny, , N.H. 33, 56:Google Scholar “intulit…Paulus…e Macedonica praeda [MMM], a quo tempore populus Romanus tributum pendere desüt.” Sanctia, De, St. Rom., IV, i, 351 n. 302Google Scholar. Note, also, the cheap labour resulting from, the Molossian enslavement (Polybius XXX, 15; Livy XLV, 341–7; Plutarch, , Aemilius 29)Google Scholar.

83 Livy XLV, 18, 3–4; 29, 11.

84 See Sanctis, De, St. Rom. III, i, 205seqGoogle Scholar.

85 Polybius VI, 12, 1–10; 15, 2–11.

86 Polybius vi, 13, 1–9; 17, 1–8. Sanctis, De, St. Rom. IV, i, 515seqGoogle Scholar.

87 .Polybius VI, 14, 3,-12; 16, 1–5; 17, 1–8. Frank, , Econ. Sur. I, 148seq., 156–7Google Scholar.

88 Polybius VI, 11, 11–13; 18, 1,-8. For Polybius's change to the άνακúκλωσιѕdoctrine later, see in particular Sanctis, De, St. Rom. III, i, 205seq; cf below, p. 1,45Google Scholar.

89 Frank, , Econ. Sur. I, 138Google Scholar(spoil); 187 (slaves); 158–160 (corn trade). Cf. Greenidge, , Hist. Rome, I, 641seqGoogle Scholar. The evidence of a need for Italian corn in Rome stops after the Third Macedonian War: provincial corn would then have came on the Roman market driving off Latin, corn, and the later wars did not create a sufficient demand to restore the position.

90 Granius Licinianus, XXVIII, p. 9.

91 Frank, , C.A.H. VIII, 336seq.Google Scholar; cf. Zancan, , Ager publicus, 31seq.Google Scholar; Heichelheim, , Wirtschaftsgesch. 623seq.; 1108–1111Google Scholar.

92 Gummerus, , “Der röm[ische] Gutsbetrieb”, Klio, Beiheft V (1906)Google Scholar; Heitland, , Agricola, 164seqGoogle Scholar; Hoerle, Catos Hausbücher; Frank, , Econ. Sur. I, 160seqGoogle Scholar.

93 de agri cult. 1, 7; X-XI; CXLIV.

94 Gummerus, , “Der röm. Gutsbetrieb”, 18Google Scholar; Bloch, , and Caicopino, , Hist. rom. II, 161–2Google Scholar. Cf. Cicero, , de off. II, 25, 89Google Scholar; Pliny, , N.H. 18, 29Google Scholar.

95 de agri cult. II, 7; cf. Plutarch, , Cato 5,Google ScholarGreenidge, , Hist. Rome, I, 83seqGoogle Scholar. Contrast the tone of Varro, , de re rust. I, 17Google Scholar; Columella, , de rust. I, 8–9Google Scholar; XI, I. Heitland, , Agricola, 167–8, 181 seq., 260 seqGoogle Scholar. It may be noted, however, that free labour still plaed a partn in Cato's time: de agri cult. l, 3; IV, 4; v, 4, CXLIV-CXLVI. Frank, , Econ. Sur. I, 172Google Scholar.

96 Livy XLV, 15, 1–7: “in quattuor urbanas tribus descripti erant libertinipraeter eos quibus filius quinquenni maior ex se natus esset—eos ubi proximo lustro censi essent, censeri iusserunt (sc. censores)—et eos qui praedium praediave rustica pluris sestertium triginta milium haberent—***censendi ius factum est. hoc cum ita servatum esset” etc. The freedmen with sons over five years of age do not represent a permanent class which is to be exempted—this would destroy the effect of the law—but are individuals who received exemption in 174–173, not as a class even then (for it was the birth and not the five years' age of a son that counted) but as the representatives of the class of freedmen with free sons in 179–178 That is, we trace a privilege granted in 179–178 and cancelled in 174–173, but without being withdrawn from the first recipients then or again in 169–168 See above, p 134 and p. 135 Against Mommsen, , Röm. Staatsrecht III, i2, 438 n I,Google ScholarSanctis, De, St. Rom. IV, I, 557–8Google Scholar. The freedmen with property are a permanent class for exemption, and a supplement indicating this is tobe supplied before “censendiius”: e.g. “>iis, sicut ante factum erat, in tribubusrusticis<” (cf. Weissenborn, ad loc.). The propertied class probably received its privileges also in 179–178 (see above, p. 134)

97 Appian, , Bell. civ. I, 7Google Scholar; Plutarch, , Ti. Gracchus 8, 1–3.Google ScholarBloch, and Carcopino, , Hist. rom. II, 85seq.Google Scholar; Last, , C.A.H. IX, 5seq.Google Scholar; Heichelheim, , Wirtschaftsgesch. 613–14Google Scholar

98 Frontinus, , de Aq. I, 7Google ScholarFrank, , Econ. Sur. I, 258seqGoogle Scholar.

99 Frank, , Econ. Sur. I, 183, 288Google Scholar.

100 Hatzfield, Les trafiquants [italiens dans l' Orient hellénique]; Holleaux, , Rome, 85seqGoogle Scholar.

101 Frank, , C.A.H. VIII, 332–3;Google ScholarEcon. Sur. I, 280.

102 Cicero, , de repub. VIII 16:Google Scholar “nos…qui Transalpinas gentis oleam et vitem serene non sinimus, quo pluris sint nostra oliveta nostraeque vineze”, There: is no need to exaggerate: this: notice (as Rostovtzeff, , Soc. Econ. Hist, 22, 492–3)Google Scholar or explain it: away (as Frank, , Econ. Sur. I, 172–s4)Google Scholar.

103 Polybius XXXIV, 9 8–11 (quoted by Strabo, 3, 2, 10); cf. Livy XL, 51, 8, Cassiodorus, , Chron. ad 158 B.C.Google ScholarFrank, Econ. Sur. I 154–6, 256–7Google Scholar

104 Livy, , Per. XLVI:Google Scholar “cui ea provincia evenerat”.

105 Pliny, N.H. 33, 78.Google ScholarFrank, , Econ. Sur. I 263–4Google Scholar

106 Pliny, , N.H. 3, 138Google Scholar “Vetere consulto patrum Italiae parci iubendium”, cf ibid. 37, 202: “metallis auri, argenti, aeris, ferrim quamdiu licuit exercere, nullis cessit terris”.

107 As Pais, Dalle guerre puniche, II, 595seqGoogle Scholar. The Senate will hardly have acted for the interests of the publicani in Spain (as Frank, , Econ. Sur. I 180, 263–4)Google Scholar

108 Sanctis, De, St. Rom. IV, i, 572–3;Google ScholarHeichelheim, , Wirtschaftsgesch. 631Google Scholar.

109 Pliny, , N.H. 33, 55Google Scholar.

110 Sanctis, De, St. Rom., IV, i, 489seq.Google Scholar; Bloch, and Carcopino, , Hist. rom. II, 98seqGoogle Scholar.

111 Suetonius, , de rhet. IGoogle Scholar; Gellius, , N.A. 15, II, IGoogle Scholar; Plutarch, , Cato 22Google Scholar; Pliny, , N.H. 7, 112Google Scholar; Livy, , Per. XLVIII:Google Scholar “tamquam. inutile nociturum publicis moribus”.

112 McDonald, , J.R.S. XXVIII (1938), 155; seq.; 162 n. 81Google Scholar. Cf. Colin, , Rome, 524seq.Google Scholar; Bloch, and Carcopino, , Hist. rom. II, 46seqGoogle Scholar.

113 McDonald, , J.R.S. XXVIII (1938), 154. seq., 163–4Google Scholar.

114 Lex Fannia cibaria (Gellius, , N.A. 2, 24, 2–3Google Scholar; Macrobius 3, 17, 3;, Pliny, , N.H. 10, 139Google Scholar; Athenaeus 6, 108); Livy, , Per. XLVIIGoogle Scholar.

115 By the proposals of M. Claudius Marcellus in 152 ( Appian, , Iber. 48–9)Google Scholar Polbius's judgment (Polyb. XXXV, 2–3) is biased in favour of Scipio Aemilianus's policy. Sanctis, De, St. Rom. IV, i, 473–4Google Scholar.

116 See, above all, Schulten, , Numantia, I, 264seqGoogle Scholar; C.A.H. VIII, 322–3.

117 As Mommsen, , Hist. Rome, III, 239, 274Google Scholar, Colin, , Rome, 643seq,Google Scholar; Heitland, , Rom. Repub. II, 156–7, 165Google Scholar. See Kahrstedt, , Geschichte der Kartliager (Meltzer, III), 616Google Scholar; Hatzfield, , Lei trafiquants, 373Google Scholar; Frank, , Rom[an] Imp[erialism], 277seq.Google Scholar; Holleaux, , Rome, 83seqGoogle ScholarHallward, , C.A.H. VIII, 476Google Scholar.

118 Cf. Sanctis, De, St. Rom. IV, i, 473–4:Google Scholar “volevano che il loro dominio fosse cementato non dai buoni trattamenti verso i soggetti, ma dalla assoluta impotenza dei soggetti a resistere… nè è meraviglia che cio facesse trascurare la pietà pei concittadini che soffrivano e monvano nelle trinee”.

119 Livy XXIV, 17, 5–11; Plutarch, , Cato 10,Google ScholarAppian, , Iber. 41Google Scholar, Polybius XXV, i, cf Livy XL, 49, I; XLI, 28, 8–9; Polybius XXX, 15; Livy XLV, 34, 1–7, Plutarch, , Aemilius 29.Google ScholarSanctis, De, St. Rom. IV, i, 478Google Scholar. Compare also the treatment of Rhodes and Pergamum (Sanctis, De, St. Rom. IV, i, 352seq)Google Scholar.

120 Frank, , Rom. Imp. 228seq., 233 seq.Google Scholar; on Scipio Nasica's opposition to the destruction of Carthage, note Gelzer, , Philologus, LXXXI (1931), 261seqGoogle Scholar.

121 Cf. Schulten, , Numantia, I, 268–9Google Scholar.

122 Capelle, , Klio, XXV (1932), 86seg.Google Scholar; cf. Heichelheim, , Wirtschaftsgesch. 640seq.; 1114–6Google Scholar.

123 Livy, , Per. XLVIIGoogle Scholar; Cassiodorus, , Chron. ad 153Google Scholar, B.C.; C.I.L. I2 p. 231; Mommsen, , Röm. Staatsrecht, I 3, 599Google Scholar; Appian, , Iber. 48Google Scholar(Marcellus had been consul in, 166 and 155).

124 Polybius XXXV, 4; Appian, , Iber. 49Google Scholar; Livy, , Per. XLVIIGoogle Scholar.

125 Cf. Cicero, , Brut. 27, 106Google Scholar; de off. 11, 21, 75; Verr. III, 84, 195; IV, 25, 56; Livy, , Per. XLVII.Google ScholarFerguson, , J.R.S. XI (1921), 86seqGoogle Scholar.

126 Appian, , Iber. 51–2, 59–60, 70, 79, 80–3Google Scholar; Plutarch, , Ti. Gracchus 5.Google ScholarSchulten, , Numantia, I, 266–9Google Scholar.

127 Appian, , Iber. 49, 65, 78Google Scholar; cf. Polybius VI, 19, 2. Schulten, , Numantia, I, 272 n. 3Google Scholar.

128 Livy, , Per. L, LVIGoogle Scholar; Malcovati, , Or. Rom, frag. IGoogle Scholar, “Cato”, XLIII, fr. 175–6; Appian, , Lib. 112Google Scholar; Iber. 84. Sanctis, De, St. Rom., IV, i, 502–3; 511 n. 60Google Scholar.

129 Cf. Bloch, and Carcopino, , Hist. rom. II, 142–3;Google ScholarHeichelheim, , Wirtschaftsgesch. 639Google Scholar.

130 Appian, Bell. civ. 1, 7: οί μὲν δυνατοì πάμπαν ὲπλοúτουν, καì τὸ τῶν θεραπόντων íαιѕτρυχομένουѕ πενία τε καì ὲσΦοραîѕ καì στρατε Cf. Plutarch, , Ti. Gracchus 8, 3:Google Scholar On Appian, see Caropino, , Autour des Gracques, 5seqGoogle Scholar.

131 Cf.Pliny, , N.H. 33, 141Google Scholar; Frontinus, , de Aq. I, 7.Google ScholarFrank, , Econ. Sur. I, 226Google Scholar.

132 Appian, , Iber. 65; Lib. 115–16Google Scholar.

133 Appian, , Bell. civ. I, 7:Google Scholar τοùѕ δ' Ἰταλιώταѕ…τρ υχομένουѕ πενíą τε καì ὲσΦοραîѕ πλουσíων ἐχομένηѕ καì λεωργοîѕ χρωμένων θεράπουσιν ἀντì έλευθέρων

134 Livy, , Per. LVGoogle Scholar; Epit. Oxyr. 204.

135 Appian, Iber. 78; cf. ibid. 84.

136 Plutarch, , Ti. Gracchus 8, 4:Google Scholar ὲπεχεíρησε μὲν οûν τῇ διορθώσει Γάïοѕ Δαíλιοѕ ὁ ἑπεκλήθη σοΦὸѕ ἣ Φρόνιμοѕ

137 Mütnzer, , Röm. Adelsparteien, 245seqGoogle Scholar.

138 Polybius XXXV, 4; Appian, , Lib. 115–16;Google ScholarIber. 84–7, 98; Schulten, , Numantia, I, 278–80Google Scholar.

139 This follows from his action in defence of the Italian allies against the Gracchan land commission, which was violating their autonomous rights (Cicero, , de repub. I, 19, 31; III, 29, 41Google Scholar; Appian, , Bell. civ. I, 18),Google ScholarAppian, , Bell. civ. I, 19Google Scholar. See Carcopino, , Bulletin de l'Association Guillaume Budé, XXII (1929), 4seqGoogle Scholar.

140 Malcovati, , Or. Rom. frag. 1Google Scholar, “P. Corn. Scipio Aemilianus”; II, fr. 6–8; v, fr. 11–12; VI, fr. 13–16; IX, fr. 20. Cf. Velleius II, 4, 4. Greenidge, , Hist. Rome, I, 102seqGoogle Scholar.

141 The settlement of veterans in 200 (see above, n. 11) and the viritane settlement of 173 (see above, n. 73). Scipio, as is reflected in Polybius (Polyb. 11, 21, 7), did not approveof Tiberius Gracchus's “Flaminian” aims in land settlement. He would not let it affect the relations with the Confederation (see above, n. 139). And, above all, he would not tolerate the constitutional irregularities by which Tiberius had gained his ends. Diodorus 34, 7, 3; Plutarch, , Ti. Gracchus 21, 3:Google Scholar ώѕ ἀπόλοιτο καì gἅλλοѕ ὅ τιѕ τοιαûτά γε ῥέζοι. Schulten, , Numantia, I, 279Google Scholar.

142 Livy, , Epit. Oxyr. 193–4;Google ScholarCicero, , de leg. III, 16, 35Google Scholar.

143 Polybius VI, 57:ôταν γὰρ…πολιτεíα…εìѕ úπεροχὴν καì δυναστεíαν ὰδήριτον ἐπιγραΦὴν τῆѕ μεταβολῆѕ ὀ δῆμοѕ Cf. above, n. 88.

144 Compare Cobban's study of the position, in Sultan times: Senate and Provinces (78-49 B.C.).

145 See Schur, Scipio Africams (cf. McDonald, , J.R.S. XXVIII (1938), 153seq.)Google Scholar Gelzer, Die Nobilität der römischen Republik; Münzer, Röm. Adebparteien; Bloch, and Carcopino, , Hist. rom. II, 171seqGoogle Scholar.