In addition, families do not belong to one or another kind: he had, for example, Valerios Valerios patricians and plebeians, and patricians and Cornelius Cornelius also commoner, without the latter, the Valerios Cornelius and commoners belonged to families of freedmen (freed slaves ), which used to take the surname of their former owners.
The differences between the classes is predominantly to economic conditions but, as neither industry nor trade had reached then a remarkable extent, those dependent on high part of the political position of the citizen, ie as an official or counselor. But we must not imagine the officers and directors as two separate circles. As a result of continued collaboration between the King and the Senate, it was natural that one would choose their employees from among the number of senators, and even later these close relationships between officials and Senate have always had an important role and often fatal.
In the early days, and just until the privileged citizens began to exploit their superiority with a complete lack of scruples is because a true democratic feeling, founded on tradition, led them to observe certain limits, either because, as is more likely still unknown and needs wider means to satisfy them, the people, the crowd, gladly accepted the scheme. The Roman farmer was very glad not to have to deal directly with each process and administrative matters, so very willingly granted to officials, senators, knights, etc.., Material and ideal compensation in exchange for their benefits.
But everything has its limits. When the dominant caste, which arose from the way we have seen, was transformed into a clique aristocratic beginning to consciously and successfully exploit its material advantages, when, without hesitation, put their full political powers to serve their economic interests and transformed use in law, public law regulating the terms of the extent of its caprices of domination, then had to start usually stretch injured class opposition, the people. The feeling of injustice that the rulers perpetrated, must be so much more alive as the crowd sensed, but instinctive and confusedly, that an extreme test of strength, the victory should touch her because of the number, if the attack were combined and managed according to a preset plan. He was preparing a big fight and bitter for domination or slavery.
The so-called class struggle, ie the struggle between patricians and plebeians, fills the earliest period of Rome to the extent that we are given historical knowledge lead to a certain extent insurance, the first centuries of the Republic. Of how that struggle has developed in the era of monarchy can not be clearly defined by the uncertainty of the sources of information. But the patricians reached, just under the protection of the monarchy, its predominant position has proved as more probable because of the nature of the case. In the course of evolution the relation of forces must surely move ever. Some limitations of royal power, which gradually reduced to a shadow as politically insignificant, reveal how the king and nobility came not always in perfect accord.
The patricians, like any aristocracy, tended to make the monarchy an instrument to "own" political ideal, as opposed to the vagaries more resolute than the supreme power. It happened like that to break the resistance of the nobility, there was rapprochement between the king and the crowd, which did not prevent the victory of the party of the nobility. What is told about the final overthrow of the monarchy, not enough for us, even in broad outline, a clear representation of events. The stories about arrogant king Tarquin, who decimated the nobility with death sentences and decrees of expatriation and overwhelms the populace with hard labor, as regards his son, even more arrogant, Sixth, a woman who violently Roman causing these events, the fall of the monarchy, the institution of the republic and the people's solemn pledge not to tolerate a king in Rome, all these stories belong to the arsenal of historical romances. What is significant is, however, that the monarchy emerged a wholly aristocratic Republic, that the populace was deeply unhappy with the new order of things.
Immediately after the expulsion of the kings, tradition points to the first exit of the populace ( "Secessio plebis") of Rome, which should be deducted a certain sympathy for the monarchy itself, without this must be regarded the various events described by tradition as true history. The traditional resume, here too, in some events the result of a long development. As happened in Athens under Aristotle's report, found in 1889, also in Rome institutional change was not caused by a crude and violent revolution, but the monarchy was gradually stripped of their powers by the installation of other powers, to that were no more than some religious functions. Within these limits, very modest indeed, the monarchy remained, both in Rome and in Athens, until recent times.
The transfer of supreme power of the monarchy, the nobility meant, undoubtedly, for commoners injury. Again tradition shows just make sense to follow the beginning of the class struggle immediately after regime change. That fight lasted over 150 years and ended with the complete alignment of the commoners. As regards the details of the great struggle, here we must also take into account the uncertainty of tradition. Events horrifying and moving, which should magnify and exalt the anger and spirit of sacrifice of the fighting sides, have been fabricated in large numbers by both parties. However, even leaving aside everything they have imagined the family tradition, the tendency of party and the vain rhetoric of the historians later, you can identify some of the events of that struggle, and, above all, it is possible to deduce the objectives and secular purposes of war. You'd better take, first, a look at peace with that struggle was concluded that, because that will place us on a firmer basis, which, in turn, will also allow us a retrospective examination of the path before.
The date of termination of the struggle between patricians and plebeians is commonly considered the year 367 (a. J. C). In that year approved legislation proposed by the tribunes of the plebs Gaius and Lucius Licinius Stole Sextius Laterano. Even though some time elapsed before the patricians in fact also recognized the new state law, the constitutional sanction of those laws the triumph of the people was finally secured and made the legal equality of two classes. It is possible that the content of these laws, in consideration of the circumstances of that time, corresponds to that was transmitted to us. The old sketches were very brief and give the content only in broad terms so that the imagination of later historians could find ample scope for interpretation. Unable to represent the situation in the distant past, these historians have arbitrarily transferred the conditions of his time to the struggle between patricians and plebeians. But that does not have to discard all useless tradition, but actually choose elements worthy of consideration and faith, seeking to understand the meaning they convey.
The standard rules are called, in almost all narratives, laws Licinius - sex. Nobody, it is said in the first point may operate in his pro-Vecho over 500 acres (125 hectares) of state lands (ager publicus). Such a provision does not agree, certainly, with the small amount that the State's territory was then, as, generally, it must be admitted that so-called "ager publicus" in those days was very small. But what we hold as true is that the land problem was solved to the satisfaction of the people, ie, that the privileges of the patricians was broken on this side. And as in the economic field, the patricians were forced to share its position with commoners hitherto prevailing in the political. While the supreme magistracy of the republic, the consulate, had hitherto been accessible only to the nobility, to waive the election of the consuls to avoid the possible nomination of candidates for commoners, the mob now got access to the consulate. More than that, by law, then voted on or shortly after, he said one of the two posts (1). Third, historians report a relief in the payment of debts: interest previously paid should be deducted from the capital and other term debt repaid in the coming years. Obviously, that provision means nothing to the ban, retroactively, to fix interest. A fourth provision, which imposes large landowners employment, alongside the slaves, a number of free workers is remembered only by a source. Given the conditions of time, could not believe as very probable that the proletariat have wanted to ensure such support. Moreover, the labor of slaves could not have had great importance at that time. It is therefore evident that that historian was induced by the social legislation of a period after this measure is also attributed to an earlier era.
Whatever, these conditions of peace tells us that the struggle between patricians and plebeians was essentially economic nature. Admission to the consulate is in no way against this assertion. The consulate then had full executive power, thus the effectiveness of new economic measures would have endangered many, whether its execution had been entrusted exclusively patrician hands. A real guarantee for the stability and duration of economic achievements could not have been achieved, if at the same time would not have eliminated the political privileges of the patricians.
This material content, we've had attributed the struggle between the two classes by the nature of the situation and the conditions of peace that ended it has been maintained throughout the course of the struggle also by traditions. The constant object of the great race is the participation of commoners in the "ager publicus" ie, its claim to have the same material benefits enjoyed by force of his patrician political privileges. And this was a common issue for all commoners, whether rich or poor. The view, often expressed, that the economic assumptions and poor commoners political postulates rich commoners had been then coupled to unite both sides in the struggle for various claims, presupposes that wealthy layers could not submit requests economic. Also last intent at essentially economic, while the former, poor commoners, did not care so much access to high public office, as seen in these positions to enemies of the patricians. But further development of this struggle reveals the desire to defend the poor against the arrogance of the rich, and although the first issue involving only poorest commoners, the two objects of the struggle, the economic and political were, however, inextricably linked. As oppressors, rich commoners differed significantly from the patricians, the latter being in condition to enforce its claims under the weight of its political dominance.
The matching in the allocation of common property ( "ager publicus") was, therefore, the main point in the postulates commoners. In appropriating political power, the patricians had also sought the power to dispose of public property. In earlier times such a power had belonged to the king, who could make use of it or no consultation of the popular Assembly. After the abolition or limitation of royal power, the consuls were the heirs of that power, while the functions of the Assembly passed, except for some specific cases the Council (Senate). So, at least in the first period of the Republic, the provision on the property tax was a purely business factors patricians, consuls the Senate, eventually had, indeed, participation in this business also commoners, but essentially under provisions limiting its influence. Following the agricultural character of the Roman community, such bias had to be felt very hard by the exodus, especially as political concepts were severely stunted and not used to think only of immediate and personal advantage.
As we have seen, the land, after the dissolution of the tribes, had become private property of individual families, and that already at a time when the extension of the state was quite limited. But from the moment that the boundaries of state territory began to widen gradually changes and displacements were determined in relations office. These increases were only rarely the result of peaceful agreements established friendly with neighboring districts, in most cases were instead the product of bitter fights, which were at stake independence, freedom and even the existence . Although people with distant subject, particularly if they belonged to the Italic race was ordinarily received in the Roman-certainly lower tariff, commoners, the land of the vanquished was considered "a priori" property of the Roman state, for at least until it had been in Rome about his fate. There were cases where, as in the Second Punic War to the inhabitants of the capital campaign, Capua, he snatched the defeated all its territory, but this cruel measure was used only in particularly important since it is obvious that if would welcome the downtrodden in the community, not destroy previously was certainly useful economic independence.
[pagebreak]
Moreover, it was not possible to leave intact the heritage of the conquered. The war was to carry the victors some material success, and he by the lack of political and economic conceptions higher, could not only consist in an increase in their land.
Normally, the territory was limited to the subject. two thirds of its previous length, rarely half. Only when the resistance was particularly persistent and extraordinarily severe loss accompanied to Rome, the winners came to possess up to two thirds of enemy territory. The land thus taken, was then delivered to property ordinarily Roman citizens, thus becoming the state in private. The view that the lands were taken away from the enemies of the state property and were given on lease only to citizens, is erroneous as this only occurred much later.
Either way, the truth is that over time, and in those conditions, was presented as inevitable the need of the spoils, if you wanted to keep the old economic order in a state farm life. Otherwise the population increase would have led to such a dismemberment of the lots or farms, they would have been unable even to feed their respective owners. For this reason the Roman peasantry opposed a stubborn resistance to that division, which threatened its very existence, and its defense could find no other better way than to test the unlimited freedom, freedom which, as can check our knowledge, had always existed in Rome. The farmer had, thus, the power to hold together the fundamental property probate and count on her to 'that at least one heir could be the continuation of the family. The Roman law distinguishes this crown, which is in possession of the assets of the testator, and named "assiduus" by others, who enjoy civil rights just as the descendants of a Roman citizen ( "Proletary" by "proles" = offspring), while the political rights of the former were much higher than those of the latter. The situation of the workers had to be in the agricultural state, which were very few possibilities for industrial and commercial profits, too fragile, especially as they, being children of farmers, were used to work exclusively rural. Therefore, if they were dispossessed in favor of a brother and had to leave the land of their fathers, while lost property, employment and income, leaving only the possibility of entering the foreign service as servants or as customers politically free. In both cases the proletarians had every reason to complain bitterly about his bad luck, especially as they saw their brothers, happier than they, absolute masters of the paternal inheritance. These were therefore mainly in stocks, to whom the state must "provide the spoils of war. If such record, which must be sought through such great sacrifices as those imposed by war, can actually contribute to the welfare and peace community, that depends primarily upon the fair division of the conquered territory. It is not possible to establish to what date the division was made solely or largely by the patricians. But, even admitting that the right of disposal belonged, since the longer far, the popular Assembly, not sharing it was done without injustice and partiality. It was not possible to perform such function impartially in an era still politically backward: a crowd sovereign is less suitable for such matters to a person or a committee aware of their responsibilities. In the Assembly each thought popular in their own interest. If he could make their applications with the help of supporters groups or group meetings, she felt calm and morally beyond reproach, despite having no scruples of any kind. The responsibility belonged exclusively to the majority, against which the individual vote counted for little.
Another drawback was in the nature of the Roman constitution. The popular vote in the Assembly was indirect, ie not determined the majority of citizens, but most of the bodies ( "centuries"). The people voted in 193 centuries, of which 98, an absolute majority, were assigned to the first class citizens, the "assidui. Even when that organization was created, the number of "assidui corresponded to their quantitative position in public life, in the course of time the land ownership was concentrated until the nobility was able to get a binding vote in the 98 centuries and, therefore, in the popular Assembly.
Where, then, on the occasion of the division of conquered lands, the consuls and the Senate favored their classmates, the centuries immediately approve such allocations. In contrast, proposals for enlightened and prudent officials, who wanted, for attachment to the public peace, commoners also satisfy orders, usually failed because of resistance by the same popular Assembly. And it was unusual for the centuries that something is proposed for the commoners, since only the consuls patricians at that time, projects were submitted for voting and for any reason were not required to receive counseling or other impositions community members, much less of commoners.
Thus the distribution of land, which could have and had to establish social equilibrium, was carrying flammable and contributed only to inflame the contrasting classes. When the proletariat were the sons of patrician families, classmates sought
Nor any means of turning them into "assidui, landlords, and possibly a first-rate allocation, ie 20 days of arable This was absolutely necessary for the nobility did not run the risk of losing their influence in the Assembly the centuries (Comitia centuriata). The placement of the workers were commoners, however, poorly arranged. The situation must be very grave for the wealthy decided to make some concession. The extension of the lot was very small in these cases, given also the very large number of applicants. In the great divide the territory of the lots allocated Vejio seems not exceeding seven days, so the new owners were all enrolled in the 20 centuries of the fourth category, the least influential politically. Also in this case political and economic reasons converged to the same end.
Over time the patricians carried the exploitation of their political dominance to such an extent that the use or rather abuse became a right and declared their caste as the sole authorized to be primarily owner of "ager publicus". That view was expressed most irritating in the fact that when the proletarians patricians had already been provided with land, if more plots were available, was preferred to leave them abandoned as public land rather than hand them over to the commoners. In this case each patrician was entitled to take, as part owner, in its administration of the land lots, while such "right of occupation" was not admitted to the commoners. It is true that the community could at any time require the return of these lands, but the owner - manager, relying on the defense of their classmates, knew very well that that action would be taken only in cases of extreme necessity. Until that time the occupant could quietly raise their income, besides having the privilege of not paying property taxes. These lands were, from the earliest times, exempt from income tax. Only later, when his occupation was admitted also for commoners, the government began to reclaim some of the rent. That form of possession was even more profitable then, by the fact that following the successful wars with the nearby Etruscan cities cas, especially with Vejio, owners and occupants were able to provided you with very cheap labor force as slaves. While in earlier times the great landowner had been taken on lease system, could now move to a more profitable operation. Although neither the system of occupation, no servile work could be widespread in an area of 25 square miles, the subsequent reports in fact reflect the extent of his time, they also helped to sharpen the contrasts of class enough.
The crowd did not care much at that time the "right of occupation", given his. limited capacity for land use expands. That right could have used only the wealthiest commoners. For the urban poor and their class could be useful only allocating small amounts of land. The systematic exclusion of commoners from participation in the "ager publicus (public land) had to ruin more and more to small landholders. The population grew, but on the other hand, increased the land area in the hands of the patricians. The old commoners fell into increasingly desperate situation, exacerbated by all sorts of accidents, such as war, crop failure, excess of births, etc.. The relationship between the land available and the number of citizens was deteriorating, and ruined many farmers could no longer keep their serfs are forced to alienate the neighboring patrician. That turned into proletarians, not only in the Roman sense of the word, but in the modern sense.
As in agriculture, the commoners could not compete with the patricians in livestock. As everywhere, especially at the level of culture, the pastures were also in Rome owned by the Commune. The fundamental principle according to which it belongs only to the patricians, made it impossible for commoners use of those fields. In the beginning the situation has also been made here over law. The ever-increasing herds of large landowners, guarded by shepherds daring, not afraid of the use of violence, were gradually supplanting the livestock of small farmers, who could not launch the struggle with the patrician powerful adversary. Moreover, their particular fields were too small for something profitable livestock farming, so that even in this direction could be glimpsed a way of salvation for the layer of small farmers.
The consequences of agricultural calamity were felt far too high. Before the farmer, for which more than for any other concepts complement labor and property, decided to abandon the land, seeking by every means to postpone the catastrophe, even when you have a hundred times seen as inevitable and the postponement it would result in further deprivation and pregnancy. First of all loan requests and is willing to accept all the conditions of the lender, whether by this means can procure relief, although temporary. What happened in this area in ancient times, no different from what is happening today, on the contrary, the stubbornness of the Roman peasant is hardly its equal in modern times.
Credit conditions were very different from today. Money relations exercised in a very modest then. It began to mint coins for the first time during the struggle between classes. Before people had settled for raw copper ingots and the oldest medium of exchange, typical of all pastoralists: cattle ( "pecus"). In a village of small farmers, without notable industry and foreign trade was very limited the need for money. Even much later was considered a bad parent who could take over what they make at home, which means not only nutrition but also clothing, shoes, etc.., Were produced almost exclusively by consumers themselves. In the situation of small farmers could not be treated at first but credit in kind. The peasant commoner borrowed his neighbor's patrician rich seeds, breeding livestock or work or other things, something borrowed and promised to return within a specified period, together with an additional amount. Do not assume that this additional amount was particularly high, usurious, but an unforeseen accident and adverse-an epidemic, hail, a war, placed the debtor in the condition of being unable to meet their obligations. In this case the poor peasant fared very badly, because the creditor could dispose of his property and himself completely to his will, without any power of the state could intervene. Roman law on debts was, from the humanitarian standpoint, something monstrous. It took into account any consideration of personal services; was based, instead, unilaterally and exclusively on material principles. The minimum degree of ownership or possession of the creditor worth more than the economic existence and even the life of the insolvent debtor. It is true that a literal consequence of this approach was lost also the cause of the creditor, it differed from the records of proceedings, although insignificant proportion of the exposure of the same. But fundamentally, the debtor had to suffer much for such legislation, while the creditor could, with a Ñoco of caution, avoid any injury.
Debitorial That such right has been included in the territorial law in its most ancient Roman encoding, is eloquent proof of how violence and the struggles of the time. If the debtor was satisfied with the protection that such coding could tell from abuse, easy to understand what should be the previous situation, when the cruelty of the act was aggravated by arbitrary excesses.
The ancient Roman territorial law itself did not know the concept of lending. Rather, it was stipulated in the form of purchase. Who taxed on their farm, formally sells his creditor depends on whose goodwill the debtor remains in possession of his property and continue its operation. If the debtor repays the loan on the agreed date, rescues, by that act, the creditor its previous ownership. Yet this is the most benign possible only if the debtor has not lost the right to property by previous obligations. But what happens when no longer able to offer such a guarantee? Then the only precious thing that still has is his own person, his liberty, his life. And, really, in this case the debtor sells, according to the rigid Roman law, the act of receiving the loan, the person to the creditor. If the deadline is not able to pay the principal and interest, the person actually belongs to the creditor. The territorial law contains a mitigating factor in such cases the creditor must make public the plight of the debtor and wait 60 days just in case someone is pious who are willing to pay the debt. After this deadline to no avail, and nothing prevented the creditor to accomplish what the law provided. He could have the person of the debtor at will: making it work as a servant in the land or sold into slavery abroad, in Etruria, because inside Latin native Lazio always kept the political freedom. But if the debtor was an old man, useless, the performances did not cover living expenses and the sale of which any amount was not obtained, the creditor could in this case to death. An insolvent debtor was regarded as anything whatsoever, so it is clear from this unique arrangement: having several creditors, they had the express right to divide the body of the debtor. Only when commoners had achieved political equality, this barbarous law could be eliminated by legislation.
From the foregoing it is, then, that following the unilateral agricultural system, the conditions of existence for the great mass of commoners were economically weak become increasingly unfavorable to the widening of state territory. And particularly aggravating circumstance must be taken into account the state of war in those early days of course more frequent than in the bloodiest periods of the Middle Ages. After what has been said about the favorable location of Rome and its relatively rich sources, which is easily understood elvla appetites continually raise not only the vigorous mountain villages, but also the neighboring Etruscans and even of the Latino brothers. The small farmer could not surely cope with this state of affairs, which threatened to ruin even the existence of a wealthy landowner. His field was wrought during the war and done very poorly ridden the enemy also had to contribute to the costs of war in proportion to the extent of their possessions. And since not all were victorious wars, he could not always get compensation for the sacrifices made. The same Roman tradition, so embellished in many ways, supports a long series of defeats.
No comments:
Post a Comment