2
INTRODUCTION
queror of Hannibal. Agriculture, in the hands of ſuch perſons, was certainly brought to great perfection, and all its operations performed with the greateſt exactneſs and oeconomy. This Pliny aſſerts, and aligns it as the reaſon that, in ancient times, there was ſuch plenty of corn in Rome. ‘What,’ ſays he, ‘was the cauſe of this fruitfulneſs? Was it, becauſe in thoſe times the lands were cultivated by the hands even of generals, the earth, as it is natural to ſuppose, delighting to be ploughed with a ſhare adorned with laurels, and by a ploughman who had been honoured with a triumph? or, becauſe theſe men ploughed their fields with the ſame diligence that they pitched their camps, and ſowed their corn with the ſame care that they formed their armies for battle[1]?’
Exactness
- ↑ Quaenam ergo tantae ubertatis canfa erat? Ipforamtune manibus Imperatorum colebantur agri; (ut fas eſt credere) gaudente terra vomere laureato et triumphali aratire: ſive illi eadem cura femina tractabant, qua bella; eademque diligentia arva diſponebant, qua caſtra; Plin. Nat. Hiſt. lib. xviii. cap. iii.
The knowledge of the Romans in agriculture is called in queſtion by ſome modern authors. The foreſts and lakes in Italy, and the teſtimony of authors in the moſt flouriſhing aera of the ſtate, and particularly of Cato the Cenſor, are mentioned as evidence of this. The extent of the foreſts and lakes is no doubt an evidence that Italy, as a country, was not improved in ſuch a manner as might have been done; but it is no evidence that agriculture was not brought by the Romans to all the perfection of which it is capable. The draining of extenſive lakes, and clearing of extenſive foreſts, are works that cannot be executed without great labour and expence; and nothing will engage men to counter theſe but a great demand for the produce of improved lands. In Italy there was no ſuch demand. The cultivated lands were ſo fruitful as to ſupply the whole inhabitants at a very cheap rate. The proportion between the expence of labour and the price of corn is perhaps the moſt proper thing to determine, not only whether the lands of Italy were very fruitful, but alſo whether there was any encouragement for expenſive improvements. In the time of Cato, wheat was ſold at the rate of 3s 6d. per quarter; and, for more than 150 years after, did not exceed 10s. Was the proportion between theſe at preſent in Britain the ſame, there would be no encouragement for expenſive improvements, and indeed very little for the culture of corn.
It may likewiſe be obſerved, that many of the foreſts of Italy were commonties belonging to villages, called communia or compaſcua. As it is expenſive to improve these, ſo it is difficult to divide them: Neither is this ever attempted, except when men are encouraged by the high price given for the produce of improved lands.
If Cato the Cenſor has indeed declared, that agriculture in Italy was in a low ſtate, the queſtion is determined; for this art in his time was perhaps in as great perfection as at any period afterwards: But Cato has not ſaid ſo. What he ſaid implies not that agriculture in his time was not carried on with great ſucceſs, but that grazing cattle was more profitable. The ſtory, as told by Columella, is as follows: Treating of paſturage, he ſays, ‘Et nunc apud noſtros quidem colonos, alia res uberior null eſt. Ut etiam M. Cato credidit, quid conſulenti, quam partem rei ruſticae exercendo celeriter locupletari poſſet? reſpondet, ſi bene paſfeceret: rurſuſque interroganti, quid deinde faciendo fatis uberes fructus percepturus eſſet? Affirmavit, ſi mediocriter paſceret. Caeterum de tam ſapiente viro piget dicere, quod eum quidam auctores memorant, eidem quaerenti, quodnam tertium in agricolatione quaeſtuoſum eſſet? affervaſſe, ſi quis vel male paſceret: cum praeſertim majus diſpendium ſequatur inertem et inſcium paſtorem, quam prudentem diligentemque compendium;’ Col. lib. vi. Praef. This cannot be ſuppoſed to imply any thing more than that the profits of paſturage were in his time much higher than the profits of tillage, occaſioned not by any defect in the culture of the lands, but by the high price of labour and the low price of corn. Had it been Cato’s opinion that, in every caſe, the profits of paſturage exceed the profits of every kind of culture, he would have given meadows the firſt place in his liſt of fields ranked by him in order, according to their value to a purchaſer; and yet, in this liſt, he aſſigns them only the fifth place; a certain evidence that he conſidered the other crops, when properly cultivated as more valuable. See chap. xxxvi.
