FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242  
243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   256   257   258   259   260   261   262   263   264   265   266   267   >>   >|  
n the hands of the large landed proprietors--a hypothesis which is not so singular as it seems. It was natural that in a country intersected by several navigable rivers the great landholder, who was paid by his tenants their quotas of produce in kind, should come at an early period to possess barks; and there is evidence that such was the case. The transmarine traffic conducted on the trader's own account must therefore have fallen into the hands of the great landholder, seeing that he alone possessed the vessels for it and--in his produce--the articles for export.(28) In fact the distinction between a landed and a moneyed aristocracy was unknown to the Romans of earlier times; the great landholders were at the same time the speculators and the capitalists. In the case of a very energetic commerce such a combination certainly could not have been maintained; but, as the previous representation shows, while there was a comparatively vigorous traffic in Rome in consequence of the trade of the Latin land being there concentrated, Rome was by no means essentially a commercial city like Caere or Tarentum, but was and continued to be the centre of an agricultural community. Notes for Book I Chapter XIII 1. I. II. Agriculture 2. I. III. Clan Villages, I. V. The Community 3. The system which we meet with in the case of the Germanic joint tillage, combining a partition of the land in property among the clansmen with its joint cultivation by the clan, can hardly ever have existed in Italy. Had each clansman been regarded in Italy, as among the Germans, in the light of proprietor of a particular spot in each portion of the collective domain that was marked off for tillage, the separate husbandry of later times would probably have set out from a minute subdivision of hides. But the very opposite was the case; the individual names of the Roman hides (-fundus Cornelianus-) show clearly that the Roman proprietor owned from the beginning a possession not broken up but united. 4. Cicero (de Rep. ii. 9, 14, comp. Plutarch, Q. Rom. 15) states: -Tum (in the time of Romulus) erat res in pecore et locorum possessionibus, ex quo pecuniosi et locupletes vocabantur--(Numa) primum agros, quos bello Romulus ceperat, divisit viritim civibus-. In like manner Dionysius represents Romulus as dividing the land into thirty curial districts, and Numa as establishing boundary-stones and introducing the festival of the Termin
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242  
243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   256   257   258   259   260   261   262   263   264   265   266   267   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
Romulus
 

landed

 
proprietor
 

traffic

 
produce
 

tillage

 

landholder

 
minute
 

husbandry

 

subdivision


opposite
 

individual

 

cultivation

 

clansmen

 

Germanic

 
combining
 

partition

 
property
 
existed
 

collective


portion

 

domain

 

marked

 

clansman

 

regarded

 

Germans

 

fundus

 

separate

 

ceperat

 

divisit


viritim
 

civibus

 

pecuniosi

 
locupletes
 

vocabantur

 

primum

 

manner

 

Dionysius

 
stones
 
boundary

introducing

 

festival

 
Termin
 

establishing

 

districts

 

represents

 

dividing

 

thirty

 

curial

 

possessionibus