Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T01:57:25.904Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Lex Plotia Agraria

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 May 2015

B.A. Marshall
B.A. Marshall*
Affiliation:
University of New England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a speech, delivered early in 59 B.C. and recorded by Dio, Pompey supported Caesar’s agrarian proposal. At the beginning of the speech, as recorded in Dio xxxviii 5. 1-2, Pompey mentioned a proposal, approved by the Senate on a former occasion, which related to the provision of land allotments for his own troops and those of Metellus:

Type
Research Article
Information
Antichthon , Volume 6 , 1972 , pp. 43 - 52
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 1969

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 For a short review of the literature up to 1950, see Gabba, E. ‘Lex Plotia Agraria’, PP 5 (1950), 66–7.Google Scholar Gabba accepts the identification of the earlier proposal with a lex Plotia agraria of 70 B.C. (but cf. his views in Athenaeum n.s. xxix [1951], 226 n. 3, where he says the law was proposed in either 70 or 69 B.c.). The identification was made originally by Zumpt, A.W. (in Gabba, PP 5 [1950], 66 n. 8).Google ScholarMeyer, E. (Caesars Monarchie and das Prinzipat des Pompeius, 2nd ed. [Stuttgart-Berlin, 1919], p. 53)Google Scholar makes the suggestion that the earlier proposal referred to by Pompey related to a land proposal for Pompey’s and Metellus’ Spanish veterans, but does not link it with a tribune Plotius; that suggestion has been followed by Gelzer, M. (Pompeius [Munich, 1949], p. 143; but cf. below).Google Scholar Gabba’s identification of the proposal as a lex Plotia of 70 B.c. has since been accepted by Smith, R.E. (‘The Lex Plotia Agraria and Pompey’s Spanish Veterans’, CQ, n.s. 7 [1957], 82);CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Smith in turn has been followed by Badian, E. (Foreign Clientelae [Oxford, 1958], p. 284),Google ScholarSyme, R. (‘Ten Tribunes’, JRS 53 [1963], 57–8)Google Scholar, Rossi, R.F. (‘Sulla Lotta Politica in Roma dopo la Morte di Silla’, PP 20 [1965], 146–7),Google ScholarLintott, A.W. (Violence in Republican Rome [Oxford, 1968], p. 3)Google Scholar and Kelly, D.H. (Auckland Classical Essays presented to E. M. Bhiklock [Auckland, 1970], p. 134).Google Scholar Others who accept the identification include Greenidge, A.H.J. and Clay, A.M. (Sourcesfor Roman History 133–70 B.C., 2nd ed. [Oxford, 1960], p. 267),Google Scholar and Gelzer, (Caesar: Politician and Statesman, 6th ed., trans. Needham, P. [Oxford, 1968], p. 29 n. 5).Google Scholar The identification has been accepted as a possibility by Broughton, T.R.S. (MRR 2 128: but cf. n. 11 below),Google Scholar by Brunt, P.A. (‘The Army and the Land in the Roman Revolution’, JRS 2 [1962], 79),Google Scholar and by H.H. Scullard (in his revision of Marsh, F.B., A History of the Roman World 146–30 B.C., 3rd ed. [London, 1963], p. 429,Google Scholar and in From the Gracchi to Nero, 3rd ed. [London, 1970], p. 419). Marsh (op. cit. p. 149) is mistaken in saying that there is no mention in our sources of any attempt to provide for Pompey’s Spanish veterans at the time of his return, for the Dio passage at least points to such an attempt.

2 Gabba, op. cit. 68.

3 The suggestion is made by H. Smilda (in Boissevain, U.P., Cassi DionisHistoriarum Romanarìan Quae Supersunt, Vol. 4, Index Historicus [Amsterdam, 1926], p. 110).Google Scholar

4 An earlier attempt to provide for Pompey’s Asiatic veterans had been made in 60 B.C. by a tribune Flavius, but this proposal was eventually dropped because of Senatorial opposition (v. inf. n. 8). Caesar’s law did not provide allotments for Pompey’s veterans only, but also contained provision for general land-distribution (Cic. Att. ii 3. 3, 16. 1–2; App. B.C. ii 10; Plut. Caes, xiv 1, Pomp, xlvii 3; Dio xxxviii 1.2). There were also proposals for general land-distribution added to Flavius’ proposal (Cic. Att. i 19. 4; Dio xxxvii 50. 1 ), but this was probably done, as Dio says, to [make the law more readily acceptable, following its initial rejection.

5 Gabba, op. cit. 68.

6 Ibid., based on the phrase in Dio xxxviii 5. 2 (παμπλούσιον γάρ ύπ’ έμοϋ γέγονε). For an account of the income received by the treasury as a result of Pompey’s eastern campaigns, cf. Plut. Pomp, xlv 3, and Badian, E.Roman Imperialism in the Late Republic, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1968), pp. 78 f.Google Scholar Money from Pompey’s eastern victories was specifically set aside for the implementation of later proposals to provide land allotments for Pompey’s veterans: for the Flavian proposal, the additional funds accruing for five years from the new tributary revenues (Cic. Att. i 19. 4), and for Caesar’s agrarian law, the revenues of the province of Syria (Cic. Dom. xxiii; cf. Dio xxxviii 1. 4–5).

7 Cf. ibid., ii I. 6. For Cicero’s part in rejecting some of the terms in the Flavian proposal, see Att. i 19. 4, and cf. Fam. xiii 4. 2. Flavius is later mentioned by Cicero, (Q.F. i 2. 10–11) as a connection of Pompey when praetor-elect.Google Scholar

8 Dio xxxvii 50. 1 : τοΰ γοΰν δημάρχου, τοϋ τήν γην τοις τω Πομπήίω ξυνεξητασμένοις κατανεΐμοα έσηγουμένου… Dio later (§ 2) mentions the name of this tribune, Lucius Flavius. Though there was provision in Flavius’ proposal for general land-distribution, this provision was added later to make the proposal more acceptable after its initial rejection (Dio xxxvii 50. 1 : see above n. 4) ; the proposal was originally (and mainly) intended to provide land allotments for Pompey’s veterans (i.e. his ‘adherents’, as Dio calk them). Pompey was eventually forced to have his tribune drop the proposal because of senatorial opposition (Cic. Att. ii 1. 6; Dio xxxvii 50. 3).

9 There is a further hint that it was a tribunician proposal in the description of the proposal as ‘irresponsible’ (sane levis). Though the adjective is applied to the Flavian proposal, the suggestion is that it applies to the Plotian proposal also. For the suggestion of irresponsibility, cf. Smith, op. cit. 83. For Cicero’s use of levis and its derivatives to denote political irresponsibility which is associated with ‘popular’ action, cf. Att. i 16. 1 (quo modo sum insectatus levitatem senum, libidinem iuventutis) ; ibid, ii 1. 6 (ille [Pompeius] … aliquid de populan levitate deponeret); Phil. v. 49 (quod cum consequi neglexisset, omnem vim ingenii, quae summa fuit in ilio, in populan levitate consumpsit).

10 Sherwin White, A.N. (JRS 46 [1956], 8)Google Scholar does not credit the proposal to a tribune at all, but says the Senate itself proposed a distribution of land : he does agree that the Dio passage relates to the year 70 B.c.

11 Rotondi, G.Leges Publicae Populi Romani (Milan, 1912), p. 342;Google ScholarCarcopino, J.Histoire Romaine, 3rd ed. (Paris, 1952), Vol. 2, pp. 402–3;Google ScholarVancura, RE 12 1155.Google Scholar There are some who sit on the fence and suggest it could have been proposed by the tribune of either 89 B.c. or 70 B.C.: Munzer, RE 21 1. 5 and 21;Google ScholarBroughton, T.R.S.MRR 2 34 and 38, n. 5, compared with 128;Google ScholarShackleton Bailey, D.R.Cicero’s Letters to Atticus, Vol. 1 (Cambridge, 1965), p. 333.Google Scholar

12 Cf. Geli, xiii 3. 5 and Dio xliv 47. 4.

13 Kelly’s thesis (op. cit. 133–9), that following the limitations placed on the tribunate by Sulla, tribunician laws could be passed with senatorial approval prior to 70 B.C., has been rejected in favour of the view that tribunes were prevented from initiating any legislation until the Sullan ban was lifted during the consulship of Pompey and Crassus in 70 B.C. (following, e.g., Last, H.CAH, Vol. 9, pp. 292–3 and 896,Google Scholar and Marsh, op. cit. p. 130). Kelly seems to have weakened his argument by not accepting attempts to date a number of tribunician laws earlier than 70 B.C.

14 Rotondi, op. cit. p. 366.

15 Class. Phil, xxxvi (1941), 120–2; TAPA lxxiii (1942), 121 n. 32. Her views on these dates are repeated in G. & R., 2nd ser., iv (1957), 14. On these dates, cf. Syme, JRS 34 (1944). 95.Google Scholar

16 MRR, ii 128 and 130 n. 4. Syme, (Class. Phil. 1 [1955], 131,Google Scholar and JRS liii [1963], 57), Badian, (JRS 49 [1959] 87Google Scholar, n. 3), and Gelzer (op. cit. p. 29) agree with Taylor and Broughton on the dating of this law. Meyer (op. cit. p. 341), Last, H. (CAH, Vol. 9, p. 896),Google Scholar and Lintott (op. cit. p. 111 ) are among those who would place this law in 70 B.c. Scullard, (From the Gracchi to Nero [London, 1970], p. 99)Google Scholar dates the law possibly to 70 B.c.; but cf. his views in his revision of Marsh (op. cit., p. 429) where he dates it to either 73 or 70 B.c. Niccolini, G. (Fasti dei tribuni della plebe [Milan, 1934], p. 251)Google Scholar assigns Plotius, the author of the lex de reditu Lepidanorum, to the tribunician year of 70/69 B.c. He is uncertain about the tribunate of the Plotius responsible for the agrarian proposal : he includes him among the tribunes of uncertain date but links him with the author of the law about Lepidus’ followers (ibid. p. 436). The lex Plautia de vi is of little help in determining the date for the tribunate of a Plotius: dates assigned to it vary between 78 and 63 B.c. It holds the same problem as the lex de reditu Lepidanorum—finding a year with a tribune of the right name (assuming that it was a tribunician law). Lintott, op. cit., pp. 110–23 reviews the evidence for dating the lex Plautia de vi and concludes very tentatively that 70 B.C. is as good a date as any, since on the evidence of the lex Plautia de reditu Lepidanorum and the lex Plotia agraria, there was a tribune with the right name active that year (but note how the dating of each of these laws hinges on that of the other). Broughton, MRR, Vol. 2, p. 128,Google Scholar also tentatively suggests 70 B.C. as the date for the lex Plautia de vi.

17 In 68/67 B.C., Clodius may have been a legate under Lucullus, or simply a member of his personal staff (Broughton, MRR, Vol. 2, p. 140).Google Scholar Clodius stirred up the trouble while the troops were wintering at Nisibis in Armenia; he left Lucullus soon after (Dio xxxvi 17. 2). On Clodius’ activity, see Lintott, G. & R., 2nd ser., 14 (1967), 157–8.Google Scholar

18 Plut. Luc. xxxiv 4: oí δέ Πομπηίου στρατιώται δήμος βντες ήδη που μετά γυναικών καΐ τέκνων καθήνται γήν εύδαίμονα καί πόλεις έχοντες.... Cf. Cic. Har. Resp. xlii; Dio xxxvi 14. 3–4.

19 Smith, op. cit. 82–3.

20 Ibid. 83.

21 Ibid.

22 The essential point of Clodius’ argument was to contrast the attitude of Lucullus and Pompey to the welfare of their troops, for he goes on: τί οδν; εί δει μηδέποτε πάυσασθαι στρατευομένους, ούχι τοιούτω στρατηγώ και σώματα τά λοιπά καΐ ψυχάς φυλάσσομεν, ώ κάλλιστος εϊναι δοκεΐ κόσμος ó τών στρατευομένων πλούτος; (Plut. Luc. xxxiv 4)· In this case, it would not matter that Clodius had exaggerated what had happened to Pompey’s veterans, for the intention of the land proposal demonstrated that Pompey was concerned about the welfare of his troops. Clodius was only one of a number of people agitating against Lucullus, preparing the way for his replacement by Pompey : we might even suggest that Clodius was working for Pompey on this occasion, as do Manni, E. (RFIC 17 [1940], 164) and Smith (op. cit. 84).Google Scholar

23 Ibid. : ‘The land law, on our hypothesis, had been passed, and the machinery for its implementation would have been set up, though little progress in actual distribution would have been achieved.’

24 Gabba, op. cit. 67–8: ‘… la rogatio Servilia non ottene l‘approvazione dell’ assemblea popolare, … mentre la legge dell’ passo di Dione sarebbe stata approvata.’ The othei writers listed in n. ? all refer to the proposal as a lex.

25 For examples of Dio‘s use of ψηφίζεσθαι to refer to senatorial voting, see xxxvi 29. 3, 31. 2, 33. 1 ; xxxix 15. 3, 28. 2. On senatus consulta and senatus auctoritates, see Th. Mommsen, Rom. Stoats, 3 1033–4,Google Scholar and Greenidge, A.H.J.Roman Public Life (London, 1901), pp. 179–80 and 272.Google Scholar There would seem to be two forms oí senatus auctoritas: a technical form by which the majority decision of the Senate, when vetoed, might still be produced in the form of a resolution (e.g. Cic. Fam. 17.4, viii 8. 5 ff, Phil, ii 48), and a more vague form, representing the corporate prestige or influence of the Senate and often merely expressing a pious wish or hope (e.g. Cic. Leg. Ag. ii 41, Dom. cxxxvi, Leg. ii 37).

26 Thus Clodius could truthfully claim that Pompey looked after the interests of his troops (see n. 22). Pompey could claim to be intending to look after the welfare of his troops : he could not be blamed if the Senate did not have the money to provide land allotments.

27 E.g. Cic. Att. i 19. 4: agraria lex a Flavio tribuno pl. vehementer agitabatur auctore Pompeio … ii 1. 6 quod de agraria lege scribis, sane iam videtur refrixisse. For a similar loose use of lex for rogatio, see Cicero’s speeches against the Rullan proposal, whose very title, de lege agraria, is inaccurate.

28 Op. cit. 83–4. Smith also thinks that Pompey intrigued for the command against the pirates, conferred by the lex Gabinia of 67 B.C., and that even then he had his eye on the splendid command against Mithridates, which was at that time in the hands of Lucullus. At the time when the Mithridatic command was created (74 B.c.), there was some thought that Pompey (then in Spain) was a possible candidate for the command, for Plutarch describes how strenuously Lucullus sought to gain the command for himself against rival candidates (Luc. vi 2–4). The fear that Pompey would return and seek this command may explain why Lucullus was active in persuading the Senate to send the increased financial support which Pompey was requesting for the Spanish campaign and without which he threatened to return to Rome (ibid, v 2).

29 For such a view, see Marsh, op. cit., p. 154; Smith, op. cit. 83–4.

30 Scullard (op. cit. p. 97) raises this possibility, but says that it cannot be known that this was really Pompey’s intention. The fact that the two great commands, conferred on Pompey soon after the restoration of the tribunes’ powers, came as the result of tribunician proposals may be taken to indicate that Pompey did intend to make use of the office.

31 Sail, . Hist, 2 98 M;Google ScholarPlut, . Luc. 5 2.Google Scholar Lucullus, the consul for that year (74 B.C.), was strenuous in his efforts to persuade the Senate to provide the increased support (see n. 28).

32 If we can believe Plutarch (Pomp, xlv 3), the treasury was restored by Pompey’s eastern campaigns (see n. 6). That money was specifically set aside from the revenue of Pompey’s campaigns to finance the purchase of land under the Flavian proposal and Caesar’s agrarian law (see above n. 6) might suggest that shortage of funds was a real problem in the implementation of the earlier proposal for Pompey’s Spanish veterans. For the economic situation in this period, seeFrank, T.An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, Vol. 1 (New Jersey, 1959 reprint), pp. 301–9, 322–33.Google Scholar

33 Marsh, op.cit. p. 149

34 Suggested by Marsh, ibid.

35 For this view, see Brunt, P.A.Social Conflicts in the Roman Republic (London, 1971), p. 119.Google Scholar The troops appear to have felt no pressing need to be rewarded with grants of land, as there is no evidence of agitation by them for their reward. If Brunt’s view is correct, they seem to have been content to wait for more than ten years to receive their reward. Perhaps the absence of agitation is an indication that they knew they were to be re–employed.

36 I should like to thank Professor E.A. Judge, Professor J. J. Nicholls and Mr. R.T. Ridley, who read early drafts of this paper and made encouraging suggestions, and to acknowledge assistance from a research grant by the University of New England.