Page:Dickson-Husbandry-of-the-Ancients-Vol-I.pdf/39

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

INTRODUCTION

5

to him, and the maintenance of his family depends entirely upon its productions, it is natural to ſuppoſe that the culture of it employs his whole attention^[1].

↑ Thoſe who are of opinion, that the moderns have brought agriculture to greater perfection than the ancients, ſenſible of the great influence of an Agrarian law, alledge, that equality of fortunes never was legally eſtabliſhed at Rome; and, as an evidence of this, mention the cenſus in the rein of Servius Tullius. It is acknowledged, that, although an equal diviſion of the lands was made by Romulus, yet matters could not continue long in this ſituation. The Roman ſtate at firſt ſubſiſted chiefly by plunder: As the nobles poſſeſſed the chief offices of the ſtate, they had alſo the chief offices of the army; and, in conſequence of this, obtained the largeſt ſhare of the plunder. Some perſons, therefore, ſoon became richer than others and could afford to advance money to thoſe who needed it. This frequently happened: For tiill the ſiege of Veii by Camillus, the ſoldiers were not paid out of the treaſury, but were obliged to provide for their own maintenance. Hence, in every expedition, many of the people were obliged to borrow money, for which they paid at the rate of 12 per cent. per annum. By this high rate of intereſt, the monied men further enriched themſelves. It appears likewiſe, that, after the diviſion of the lands, ſome of the citizens ſoon diſpoſed of their ſhares, and reſided within the walls of the city. Hence the early diſtinction between the country tribes and thoſe of the town; the latter of which, being idle and ſlothful, were not reckoned ſo honourable as thoſe of the country. ‘Ruſticae tribus laudatiſſimae eorum, qui rura haberent. Urbanae vero, in quas transferri ignominia eſſet, deſidiae probro;’ Plin. Nat. Hiſt. lib. xviii. cap. iii. But, though perſons were not confined to the quantity allotted to each citizen, yet there was ſuch a number of great men that poſſeſſed no more than this ſmall portion, for the courſe of near 500 years from the building of the city, that the ſame effect muſt have been produced in the improvement of agriculture, as if the Agrarian law had been enforced in the ſtricteſt ſenſe.

[1] Thoſe who are of opinion, that the moderns have brought agriculture to greater perfection than the ancients, ſenſible of the great influence of an Agrarian law, alledge, that equality of fortunes never was legally eſtabliſhed at Rome; and, as an evidence of this, mention the cenſus in the rein of Servius Tullius. It is acknowledged, that, although an equal diviſion of the lands was made by Romulus, yet matters could not continue long in this ſituation. The Roman ſtate at firſt ſubſiſted chiefly by plunder: As the nobles poſſeſſed the chief offices of the ſtate, they had alſo the chief offices of the army; and, in conſequence of this, obtained the largeſt ſhare of the plunder. Some perſons, therefore, ſoon became richer than others and could afford to advance money to thoſe who needed it. This frequently happened: For tiill the ſiege of Veii by Camillus, the ſoldiers were not paid out of the treaſury, but were obliged to provide for their own maintenance. Hence, in every expedition, many of the people were obliged to borrow money, for which they paid at the rate of 12 per cent. per annum. By this high rate of intereſt, the monied men further enriched themſelves. It appears likewiſe, that, after the diviſion of the lands, ſome of the citizens ſoon diſpoſed of their ſhares, and reſided within the walls of the city. Hence the early diſtinction between the country tribes and thoſe of the town; the latter of which, being idle and ſlothful, were not reckoned ſo honourable as thoſe of the country. ‘Ruſticae tribus laudatiſſimae eorum, qui rura haberent. Urbanae vero, in quas transferri ignominia eſſet, deſidiae probro;’ Plin. Nat. Hiſt. lib. xviii. cap. iii. But, though perſons were not confined to the quantity allotted to each citizen, yet there was ſuch a number of great men that poſſeſſed no more than this ſmall portion, for the courſe of near 500 years from the building of the city, that the ſame effect muſt have been produced in the improvement of agriculture, as if the Agrarian law had been enforced in the ſtricteſt ſenſe.

[1]