20
See below, p. 315. In general the allusion is to the Roman practice of founding colonies on land confiscated from defeated enemies. The earliest of these were planted in Italy in the fourth century B.C., usually at strategically important points, e.g. along the coast or on the main strategic roads. The colonists were usually men of military age intended to serve as garrisons. Each man was given an allotment of land, the size of which varied according to the situation of the colony and the status of the colonist—larger plots being given to centurions or cavalrymen, e.g., than to infantrymen. The specific reference to an agrarian law is less easy to explain, but the law referred to is probably that of C. Gracchus in 123–2 B.C. The elder Gracchus, Tiberius, had passed an agrarian law, in 133 B.C., redistributing some of the public land in Italy- His brother, Caius, re-enacted this law and also revived the practice of founding colonies, not for strategic reasons but merely to provide more land for allotments. He was the first to found a colony outside Italy, that of Junonia on the site of Carthage. Though the founding of colonies was not strictly part of the agararian law, the two policies were complementary and are sometimes identified—e.g. by Livy, Epit., 60. The idea of founding colonies in the provinces was taken up by later reformers—thus Julius Caesar founded one on the site of Corinth and the emperors, especially Augustus, adopted it as a means of romanising the provinces. (For details see T. Frank, Economic survey of ancient Rome, passim.) There is a possibility that Walshe was also thinking of the well known agrarian law of 111 B.c. which seems to have been an attempt to clarify the situation with regard to public land in Italy and north Africa. The bronze tablets containing the fragments of this law were discovered before 1521, and though the law itself was not fully understood until much later, scholars were working on it by that date. (See Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum, i (2nd ed.), 585, and Camb. anc. hist., ix. 100, with the references there given.) I am indebted for this commentary to Mr H. Hill, Department of Classics, University College, Swansea.
