Obrazy na stronie

ginning with Procles), succeeded his father Archidamus B.C. 427, and reigned a little more than 28 years. In the summer of B.C. 426, he led an army of Peloponnesians and their allies as far as the isthmus, with the intention of invading Attica; but they were deterred from advancing farther by a succession of earthquakes which happened when they had got so far. "... 3, 89.) In the spring of the following year he led an army into Attica, but quitted it fifteen days after he had entered it. (Thucyd., 4, 2.6.) In B.C. 419, the Argives, at the instigation of Alcibiades, attacked Epidaurus; and Agis, with the whole force of Lacedæmon, set out at the same time, and marched to the frontier city, Leuctra. No one, Thucydides tells us, knew the purpose of this expedition. It was probably to make a diversion in favour of Epidaurus. (Thirlwall, vol. 3, p. 342.) At Leuctra the aspect of the sacrifices deterred him from proceeding. He therefore led his troops back, and sent round notice to the allies to be ready for an expedition at the end of the sacred month of the Carnean festival; and when the Argives repeated their attack on Epidaurus, the Spartans again marched to the frontier town, Caryte, and again turned back, professedly on account of the aspect of the victims. In the middle of the following summer (B.C. 418), the Epidaurians being still hard pressed by the Argives, the Lacedaemonians, with their whole force and some allies, under the command of Agis, invaded Argolis. By a skilful manoeuvre, he succeeded in intercepting the Argives, and posted his army advantageously between them and the city. But just as the battle was about to begin, Thrasyllus, one of the Argive generals, and Alciphron came to Agis, and prevailed on him to conclude a truce for four months. Agis, without disclosing his motives, drew off his army. On his return he was severely censured for having thus thrown away the opportunity of reducing Argos, especially as the Argives had seized the opportunity afforded by his return, and taken Orchomenos. It was proposed to pull down his house, and inflict on him a fine of 100,000 drachmae. But, on his earnest entreaty, they contented themselves with appointing a council of war, consisting of 10 Spartans, without whom he was not to lead an army out of the city. (Thucyd., 5, 54, 57, &c.) Shortly afterward they received intelligence from Tegea, that, if not promptly succoured, the party favourable to Sparta in that city would be compelled to give way. The Spartans immediately sent their whole force under the command of Agis. He restored tranquillity at Tegea, and then marched to Mantineia. By turning the waters so as to flood the lands of Mantineia, he succeeded in drawing the army of the Mantineans and Athenians down to the level ground. A battle ensued, in which the Spartans were victorious. This was one of the most important battles ever fought between Grecian states. (Thucyd., 5, 71–73.) In B.C. 417, when news reached Sparta of the counter-revolution at Argos, in which the oligarchical and Spartan faction was overthrown, an army was sent there under Agis. He was unable to restore the defeated party, but he destroyed the long walls which the Argives had begun to carry down to the sea, and took Hysiae. (Thucyd., 5,83.) In the spring of 3.C. 413, Agis entered Attica with a Peloponnesian army, and fortified Deceleia, a steep eminence about 15 miles northeast of Athens (Thucyd., 7, 19, 27); and in the winter of the same year, after the news of the disastrous fate of the Sicilian expedition had reached Greece, he marched northward to levy contributions on the allies of Sparta, for the purpose of constructing a fleet. While at Deceleia he acted in a great measure independently of the Spartan government, and received embassies as well from the disaffected allies of the Athenians as from the Boeotians and other allies of Sparta. (Thucyd., 8, 3, 5.) He seems to have remained at Deceleia till the end of the Pelopon

nesian war. In 411, during the administration of the Four Hundred, he made an unsuccessful attempt on Athens itself. (Thucyd., 8, 71.) In B.C. 401, the command of the war against Elis was intrusted to Agis, who in the third year compelled the Eleans to sue for peace. As he was returning from Delphi, whither he had gone to consecrate a tenth of the spoil, he fell sick at Heraea in Arcadia, and died in the course of a few days after he reached Sparta. (Xen., Hell., 3, 2, § 21, &c.; 3, § 1–4.) He left a son, Leotychides, who, however, was excluded from the throne, as there was some suspicion with regard to his legitimacy. While Alcibiades was at Sparta he made Agis his implacable enemy. Later writers (Justin, 5, 2–Plut., Alcib., 23) assign as a reason, that the latter suspected him of having dishonoured his queen Timaea. It was probably at the suggestion of Agis that orders were sent out to Astyochus to put him to death. Alcibiades, however, received timely notice (according to some accounts, from Timaea herself), and kept out of the reach of the Spartans. (Thucyd., 8, 12, 45.—. Plut., Lysand, 22.—Agesil., 3.)—III. The eldest son of Archidamus III., was the 20th king of the Eurypontid line. His reign was short, but eventful. He succeeded his father in B.C. 338. In B.C. 333, we find him going with a single trireme to the Persian commanders in the AEgean, Pharnabazus and Autophradates, to request money and an armament for carrying on hostile operations against Alexander in Greece. They gave him 30 talents and 10 triremes. The news of the battle of Issus, however, put a check upon their plans. He sent the galleys to his brother Agesilaus, with instructions to sail with them to Crete, that he might secure that island for the Spartan interest. In this he seems in a great measure to have succeeded. Two years afterward (B.C. 331), the Greek states which were leagued together against Alexander seized the opportunity of the disaster of Zopyrion and the revolt |. Thracians, to declare war against Macedonia. Agis was invested with the command, and with the Lacedaemonian troops, and a body of 8000 Greek mercenaries, who had been present at the battle of Issus, gained a decisive victory over a Macedonian army under Corragus. Having been joined by the other forces of the league, he laid siege to Megalopolis. The city held out till Antipater came to its relief, when a battle ensued, in which Agis was defeated and killed. It happened about the time of the battle of Arbela. (Arrian, 2, 13. Diod., 16, 63, 68; 17, 62.—Esch. c. Ctesiph., p. 77.—Curt., 6, 1–Justin, 12, 1.)—IV.

The elder son of Eudamidas II., was the 24th king of the Eurypontid line. He succeeded his father in B.C. 244, and reigned four years. In B.C. 243, after the

liberation of Corinth by Aratus, the general of the Achaean league, Agis loan army against him, but was defeated. (Paus., 2, 8, § 4.) The interest of his reign, however, is derived from events of a different kind. Through the influx of wealth and luxury, with their concomitant vices, the Spartans had greatly degenerated from the ancient simplicity and severity of manners. Not above 700 families of the genuine Spartan stock remained, and, in consequence of the innovation introduced by Epitadeus, who procured a repeal of the law which secured to every Spartan head of a family an equal portion of land, the landed property had passed into the hands of a few individuals, of whom a great number were females, so that not above 100 Spartan families possessed estates, while the poor were burdened with debt. Agis, who from his earliest youth had shown his attachment to the ancient discipline, undertook to reform these abuses, and re-establish the institutions of Lycurgus. For this end he determined to lay before the Spartan senate a proposition for the abolition of all debts and a new partition of the lands. Another part of his plan was to give landed estates to the Perigeci. His schemes were warmly

seconded by the poorer classes and the young men, and as strenuously opposed by the wealthy. He succeeded, however, in gaining over three very influential persons—his uncle Agesilaus (a man of large property, but who, being deeply involved in debt, hoped to profit by the innovations of Agis), Lysander, and Mandrocleides. Having procured Lysander to be elected one of the ephors, he laid his plans before the senate. He proposed that the Spartan territory should be divided into two portions, one to consist of 4500 equal lots, to be divided among the Spartans, whose ranks were to be filled up by the admission of the most respectable of the Periocci and strangers; the other to contain 15,000 equal lots, to be divided among the Periaeci. The senate could not, at first, come to a decision on the matter. Lysander, therefore, convoked the assembly of the people, to whom Agis submitted his measure, and offered to make the first sacrifice, by giving up his lands and money, telling them that his mother and grandmother, who were possessed of great wealth, with all his relations and friends, would follow his example. His generosity drew down the applauses of the multitude. The opposite party, however, headed by Leonidas, the other king, who had formed his habits at the luxurious court of Seleucus, king of Syria, got the senate to reject the measure, though only by one vote. Agis now determined to rid himself of Leonidas. Lysander, accordingly, accused him of having violated the laws by marrying a stranger and living in a foreign land. Leonidas was deposed, and was succeeded by his son-in-law, Cleombrotus, who co-operated with Agis. Soon afterward, however, Lysander's term of office expired, and the ephors of the following year were opposed to Agis, and designed to restore

Aeonidas. They brought an accusation against Lysander and Mandrocleides, of attempting to violate the laws. Alarmed at the turn events were taking, the two latter prevailed on the kings to depose the ephors by force, and appoint others in their room. Leonidas, who had returned to the city, fled to Tegea, and in his flight was protected by Agis from the violence meditated against him by Agesilaus. The selfish avarice of the latter frustrated the plans of Agis, when there now seemed nothing to oppose the execution of them. He persuaded his nephew and Lysander that the most effectual way to secure the consent of the wealthy to the distribution of their lands, would be to begin by cancelling the debts. Accordingly, all bonds, registers, and securities were piled up in the market-place and burned. Agesilaus, having secured his own ends, contrived various pretexts for delaying the division of the lands. Meanwhile, the Achaeans applied to Sparta for assistance against the Ætolians. Agis was accordingly sent at the head of an army. The cautious movements of Aratus gave Agis no opportunity of distinguishing himself in action, but he gained great credit by the excellent discipline he preserved among his troops. During his absence Agesilaus so incensed the poorer classes by his insolent conduct and the continued postponement of the division of the lands, that they made no opposition when the enemies of Agis openly brought back Leonidas and set him on the throne. Agis and Cleombrotus fled for sanctuary, the former to the temple of Athene Chalcioecus, the latter to the temple of Poseidon. Cleombrotus was suffered to go into exile. Agis was entrapped by some treacherous friends and thrown into prison. Leonidas immediately came with a band of mercenaries, and secured the prison without, while the ephors entered it, and went through the mockery of a trial. When asked if he did not repent of what he had attempted, Agis replied that he should never repent of so glorious a design, even in the face of death. He was condemned, and precipitately executed, the ephors fearing a rescue, as a great concourse of people had assembled round the prison gates. Agis, observing that one of his executioners

was moved to tears, said, “Weep not for me: suffering as I do, unjustly, I am in a happier case than my murderers.” His mother, Agesistrate, and his grandmother, were strangled on his body. Agis was the first king of Sparta who had been put to death by the ephors. Pausanias, who, however, is undoubtedly wrong, says (8, 10, § 4; 27, § 9) that he fell in battle. His widow, Agiatis, was forcibly married by Leonidas to his son, Cleomenes, but, nevertheless, they enter. tained for each other a mutual affection and esteem. (Plutarch, Agus, Cleomenes, Aratus. Paus., 7, 7, § 2.)—V. A Greek poet, a native of Argos, and a con temporary of Alexander the Great, whom he accompanied on his Asiatic expedition. Curtius (8, 5), as well as Arrian (Anab., 4, 9) and Plutarch (De adulat. c. amic. discrim., p. 60), describe him as one of the basest flatterers of the king. Curtius calls him “pessimorum carminum post Choerilum conditor,” which probably refers rather to their flattering character than to their worth as poetry. The Greek Anthology (6, 152) contains an epigram, which is probably the work of this flatterer. (Jacobs, Anthol., 3, p. 836—Zimmermann, Zeutschrift fur die Alterth., 1841, p. 164.) Athenaeus (12, p. 516) mentions one Agis as the author of a work on the art of cooking (opaptutukù). Agisimba, a district of Æthiopia, the most southern with which the ancients were acquainted. It is supposed to correspond to Asben in Nigritia. (Bischoff und Möller, Worterb, der Geogr., s. v.) It is some. times written Agizymba. AGLALA, I. one of the Graces, called sometimes Pasiphae. (Pausan., 9,35–Wid. Charites.)—II. Daughter of Thespius, and mother, by Hercules, of Antiades. (Apollod., Biblioth., 2, 7, § 8.)—III. The wife of King Charopus, and mother of Nireus, who came with three vessels and a small band of followers from the island of Syme against Troy. (Hom., Il., 2,671. Diod. Sic., 5, 53.) Homer says nothing farther about him than that he was the most beautiful man in the Grecian army after Achilles (vid. Nireus); his story, however, was related at length in the Cyclic bards. (Wid. Heyni Annot. ad Hom., Il., 2,671-3.) Lucian has ironically represented him as contesting the palm of personal beauty with Thersites in the lower world. (Dial. Mort., 25.) Aglaopheme ('Ayaaoosium), one of the Sirens. (Wid. Sirenes.) AGLAoNice, a Thessalian female, who prided herself on her skill in predicting eclipses, &c. She boasted even of her power to draw down the moon to earth, Hence the Greek adage, tow aežňvm, karūanā, “She draws down the moon,” applied to a boastful person. (Erasm. Chil., col. 853.) AGLAöphon, I. a painter of the isle of Thasos, who flourished in the 70th Olympiad, 500 B.C. He was the father and master of Polygnotus and Aristophon. Quintilian (12, 10) speaks of his style in common with that of Polygnotus, as indicating, by its simplicity of colouring, the early stages of the art, and yet being preferable, by its air of nature and truth, to the efforts of the great masters that succeeded.—II. A son of Aristophon, and grandson of the preceding, also distinguished as a painter. He celebrated, by his productions, the victories of Alcibiades. (Sillig, Dict, Art., s. v.) Aglauros. Wid. Agraulos. Aglkus, a native of Psophis, and the poorest man in all Arcadia, but still pronounced, by the Delphic oracle, a happier man than Gyges, monarch of Lydia. (Val. Max., 7, 1.) AgNA, or Hagna, a female in the time of Horace, who, though troubled with a polypus in the nose, and having her visage, in consequence, greatly deformed, yet found, on this very account, an admirer in one Balbinus. The commentators make her to have been a freed-woman and a native of Greece. (Horat., Serm. 1, 3, 40 Y

AgNodice, an Athenian virgin, who disguised her sex to learn medicine, it being ordained by the Athenian laws, that no slave or female should learn the healing art. She was taught by Hierophilus the art of midwifery, and when employed, always discovered her sex to her patients. This brought her into so much practice, that the males of her profession, who were now out of employment, accused her before the Areopagus of corrupt conduct, “quod dicerent eum glabrum esse, et corruptorem earum, et illas simulare imbecillitatem.” Agnodice was about to be condemned, when she discovered her sex to the judges. A law was immediately passed authorizing all freeborn women to learn the healing art. (Hygin., Fab., 274.) AgNoN, I. son of Nicias, was present at the .# of Samos by Pericles, having brought reinforcements from Athens. After the Peloponnesian war had broken out, he and Cleopompus, both colleagues of Pericles, were despatched with the forces which the last-mentioned commander had previously led, to aid in the reduction of Potidaea. The expedition was frustrated, however, by sickness among the troops. Agnon was also the founder of Amphipolis; but the citizens of that place, forgetful of past services, opened their gates to Brasidas, the Spartan general, and when the body of this commander was subsequently interred within Amphipolis, they threw down every memorial of Agnon. (Thucyd., 1, 117.—Id, 2, 58.)—II. Wid. Supplement. AgNoNipes, an orator, and popular leader at Athens, who accused Phocion of treason for not having opposed with more activity the movements of Nicanor. After the death of Phocion, and when the people, repenting of their conduct towards him, were doing everything to honour his memory, Agnonides suffered capital punishment, by a decree passed for that special purpose. (Plut., Wit. Phoc., c. 33, 38.) AgonALIA and Agonia, a festival at Rome in honour of Janus, celebrated on the ninth of January, the 20th of May, and the 10th of December. (Vid. Dictionary of Antiquities.) AgoNIUs ("Aydivtoc), a surname or epithet of several gods. AEschylus (Agam., 513) and Sophocles (Trach., 26) use it of Apollo and Jupiter, and apparently in the sense of helpers in struggles and contests. But it is more especially used as a surname of Mercury, who presides over all kinds of solemn contests. AGöNEs Capitol.INI, contests instituted by Domitian in honour of Jupiter Capitolinus, and celebrated every fifth year on the Capitoline Hill. According to Suetonius (Domit., 4), they were of a threefold character: musical, which included poetic contests, equestrian, and gymnastic. Prizes were awarded also for the best specimens of Greek and Latin prose composition. Censorinus informs us, that they were instituted in the twelfth consulship of Domitian and Dolabella (A.U.C. 839). It was at these contests that the poet Statius was defeated. (Cens., c. 18.-Crusius, ad Suet, l.c.) Games similar to these had been previously instituted by Nero. (Suet, Ner, 12.) Agor Acritus, a statuary of Paros, and the favourite pupil of Phidias, who, according to Pliny (26, 5), carried his attachment so far as even to have inscribed on some of his own works the name of his young disciple. The same writer informs us, that Agoracritus contended with Alcamenes, another pupil of Phidias, and a native of Athens, in making a statue of Venus, and had the mortification to see his rival crowned as victorious, in consequence of the prejudice of the Athenians in favour of their countryman. Full of resentment, he sold his statue to the inhabitants of Rhamnus, a borough of Attica, on condition that it should never re-enter within the walls of Athens. Pliny adds, that Agoracritus named this statue Nemesis, and that Varro regarded it as the finest specimen of sculpture that he had ever seen. Pausanias (1, 33) gives an entirely different account; for, without mentioning the name of Agorac

ritus, he says that the statue of the Rhamnusian Nemesis was the work of Phidias. Strabo, again, differs from both Pliny and Pausanias, for he asserts that the celebrated statue in question was ascribed to both Agoracritus and Diodotus (the latter of whom is not mentioned in any other passage), and that it was not at all inferior to the works of Phidias. (Strab., 396.) It is difficult to reconcile these conflicting statements. Perhaps the statue was by Phidias, and the name of his favourite pupil was inscribed upon it by the artist. Equally difficult is it to conceive how a statue of Venus could be so modified as to be transformed into one of the goddess of Vengeance, for such was Nemesis. Sillig endeavours to explain this, but with little success. (Dict, Art., s. v.) Agor ANöMI, 'Ayopavóuot, sometimes called Aoytarai, ten Athenian magistrates, five of whom officiated in the city, and five in the Piraeus. To them a certain toll or tribute was paid by those who brought anything into the market to sell. They had the care of all saleable commodities in the market except corn, and they were employed in maintaining order, and in seeing that no one defrauded another, or took any unreasonable advantage in buying and selling. (Wachsmuth, Alterthums, vol. 2, p. 65.) Agrigas, or Acragas, I. a small river of Sicily, running near Agrigentum. It is now the San Blasio. (Mannert, 9, pt. 2, p. 354.) — II. The Greek name of Agrigentum. (Vid. Agrigentum.) AGRAGIRNA, or AcragiXNAE, Port.F, gates of Syracuse. There were in this quarter a great number of sepulchres, and here Cicero discovered the tomb of Archimedes. (Tusc. Quast., 5, 23.) The name of these gates has given great trouble to the commentators. Dorville (ad Chart., p. 193) reads Agragantinas in the passage of Cicero just referred to, because the gates in question looked towards Agrigentum and the south, according to the Antonin. Itin., p. 95. Schütz gives Achradinas in his edition of Cicero, which is superior to Acradinas, the reading of H. Ste. phens and Davis, though the last is adopted by Göller. (Syracus., p. 64.) The argument in its favour turns upon the circumstance of a porta Achradina being mentioned among the gates of Syracuse, but not a porta Agragantina. Thus we have in Diodorus Siculus (13, 75), ro, karū riv 'Arpaëtviv Tv?&nt, and (13, 113), trpèc rov troom, ric'Axpačtvijo. The preferable reading, therefore, in Cicero (l.c.) is portas Achradinas, as indicating gates in that quarter of Syracuse termed Achradina. (Vid. Achradina.) AGRARIAE LEGEs, laws enacted in Rome for the division of public lands. In the valuable work on Roman history by Niebuhr (vol. 2, p. 129, seqq., Cambr. transl.), it is satisfactorily shown, that these laws, which have so long been considered as unjust attacks upon private F.". had for their object only the distribution of lands which were the property of the state, and that the troubles to which they gave rise were occasioned by the opposition of persons who had settled on these lands without having acquired any title to them. These laws of the Romans were so intimately connected with their system of establishing colonies in the different parts of their territories, that, to attain a proper understanding of them, it is necessary to be. stow a moment's consideration on that system.—According to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, their plan of t sending out colonies or settlers began as early as the time of Romulus, who generally placed colonists from 'the city of Rome on the lands taken in war. The same | policy was pursued by the kings who succeeded him; and, when the kings were expelled, it was adopted by the senate and the people, and then by the dictators. There were several reasons inducing the Roman government to pursue this policy, which was continued for a long period without any intermission; first, to have a check on the conquered people; secondly, to have

[ocr errors]

a protection against the incursions of an enemy; thirdly, to augment their population; fourthly, to free the city of Rome from an excess of inhabitants; fifthly, to quiet seditions; and, sixthly, to reward their veteran soldiers. These reasons abundantly appear in all the best ancient authorities. In the later periods of the republic, a principal motive for establishing colonies was to have the means of disposing of soldiers, and rewarding them with donations of lands; and such colenies were, on this account, denominated military colonies. Now, for whichever of these causes a colony was to be established, it was necessary that some law respecting it should be passed either by the senate or people. This law in either case was called le. agraria, an agrarian law, which will now be explained.— An agrarian law contained various provisions; it described the land which was to be divided, and the classes of people among whom, and their numbers, and by whom, and in what manner, and by what bounds, the territory was to be parcelled out. The mode of dividing the lands, as far as we now understand it, was twofold; either a Roman population was distributed over the particular territory, without any formal erection of a colony, or general grants of land were made to such citizens as were wiiling to form a colony there. The lands which were thus distributed were of different descriptions, which we must keep in mind in order to have a just conception of the operation of the agrarian laws. They were either lands taken from an enemy, and not actually treated by the government as public property; or public lands which had been artfully and clandestinely taken possession of by rich and powerful individuals; or, lastly, lands which were bought with money from the public treasury, for the purpose of being distributed. Now all such agrarian laws as embraced either lands of the enemy, or those which were treated and occupied as public property, or those which had been bought with the public money, were carried into effect without any public commotions; but those which operated to disturb the rich and powerful citizens in the possession of the lands which they unjustly occupied, and to place colonists (or settlers) on them, were never promulgated without creating great disturbances. The first law of this kind was proposed by Spurius Cassius; and the same measure was afterward attempted by the tribunes of the commons almost every year, but was as constantly defeated by various artifices of the nobles; it was, however, at length passed. It appears, both from Dionysius and Varro, that, at first, Romulus allotted two jugera (about 14 acres) of the public lands to each man; then Numa divided the lands

which Romulus had taken in war, and also a portion

of the other public lands; afterward Tullus divided those lands which Romulus and Numa had appropriated to the private expenses of the regal government; then Servius distributed among those who had recently become citizens, certain lands which had been taken from the Veientes, the Caerites and Tarquinii; and, upon the expulsion of the kings, it appears that the lands of Tarquinius Superbus, with the exception of the Campus ". were, by a decree of the senate, granted to the people. After this period, as the republic, by means of its continual wars, received continual accessions of conquered lands, those lands were either occupied by colonists or remained public property, until the period when Spurius Cassius, twentyfour years after the expulsion of the kings, proposed a law (already mentioned) by which one part of the land taken from the Hernici was allotted to the Latins, and the other part to the Roman people; but as this law comprehended certain lands which he accused private persons of having taken from the public, and as the senate also opposed him, he could not accomplish the passage of it. This, according to Livy, was the first proposal of an agrarian law, of which, he adds, not Oile was o proposed, down to the period of his re8

membrance, without very great public commotions Dionysius informs us, farther, that this public land, by the negligence of the magistrate, had been suffered to fall into the possession of rich men; but that, notwithstanding this, a division of the lands would have taken place under this law, if Cassius had not included amo the receivers of the bounty the Latins and the Hernici, whom he had but a little while before made citizens. After much debate in the senate on this subject, a decree was passed to the following effect: that counmissioners, called decemvirs (ten in number), appointed from among the persons of consular rank, should mark out, by boundaries, the public lands, and should designate how much was to be let out, and how much was to be distributed among the common people ; that, if any land had been acquired by joint service in war, it should be divided, according to treaty, with those allies who had been admitted to citizenship; and that the choice of the commissioners, the appointment of the lands, and all other things relating to this subject, should be committed to the care of the succeeding consuls. Seventeen years after this, there was a vehement contest about the division, which the tribunes proposed to make, of lands then unjustly occupied by the rich men; and, three years after that, a similar attempt on the part of the tribunes, would, according to Livy, have produced a ferocious controversy, had it not been for Quintus Fabius. Some years after this, the tribunes proposed another law of the same kind, by which the estates of a great part of the nobles would have been seized to the public use; but it was stopped in its progress. Appian says, that the nobles and rich men, partly by getting possession of the public lands, partly by buying out the shares of indigent owners, had made themselves owners of all the lands in Italy, and had thus, by degrees, accomplished the removal of the common people from their possessions. This abuse stimulated Tiberius Gracchus to revive the Licinian law, which prohibited any individual from holding more than 500 jugera, or about 350 acres of land; and would, consequently, compel the owners to relinquish all the surplus to the use of the public ; but Gracchus proposed that the owners should be paid the value of the lands relinquished. The law, however, did not operate to any great extent, and, after . cost the Gracchi their lives, was by degrees rendere wholly inoperative. After this period, various other Agrarian laws were attempted, and with various success, according to the nature of their provisions and the temper of the times in which they were proposed. One of the most remarkable was that of Rullus, which gave occasion to the celebrated oration against him by Cicero, who prevailed upon the people to reject the law.—From a careful consideration of these laws, and the others of the same kind, on which we have not commented, it is apparent that the whole object of the Roman agrarian laws was, the lands belonging to the state, the public lands or national domains, which, as already observed, were acquired by conquest or treaty, and, we may add also, by confiscations or direct seizures of private estates by different factions, either for lawful or unlawful causes; of the last of which we have a well-known example in the time of Sylla's proscriptions. The lands thus claimed by the public became naturally a subject of extensive speculation with the wealthy capitalists, both among the nobles and other classes. In our own times, we have seen, during the revolution in France, the confiscation of the i. belonging to the clergy, the nobility, and emigrants, lead to similar results. The sales and purchases of lands by virtue of the agrarian laws of Rome, under the various complicated circumstances which must ever exist in such cases, and the attempts by the government to resume or regrant such as had been sold, whether by right or by wrong, especially after a purchaser had been long in possession, under a title which he supposed the existing laws gave him, naturally occasioned great heat and agitation; the subject itself being intrinsically one of great difficulty, even when the passions and interests of the parties concerned o permit a calm and deliberate examination of their respective rights.—From the commotions which usually attended the proposal of agrarian laws, and from a want of exact attention to their true object, there has been a general impression, among readers of the Roman history, that those laws were always a direct and violent infringement of the rights of private property. Even such men, it has been observed, as Machiavelli, Montesquieu, and Adam Smith, have shared in this misconception of them. This erroneous opinion, however, has lately been exposed by the genius and learning of Niebuhr in his Roman history above mentioned, a work which may be said to make an era in that department of learning, and in which he has clearly shown that the original and professed object of the agrarian laws was the distribution of the public lands only, and not those of private citizens. Of the Licinian law, enacted about 376 B.C., on which all subsequent agrarian laws were modelled, Niebuhr enumerates the following as among the chief provisions: 1. The limits of the public land shall be accurately defined. Portions of it, which have been encroached on by individuals, shall be restored to the state. , 2. Every estate in the public land, not greater than this law allows, which has not been acquired by violence or fraud, and which is not on lease, shall be ood against any third person. 3. Every Roman citizen shall be competent to occupy a portion of newlyacquired public land, within the limits prescribed by this law, provided this land be not divided by law among the citizens, nor granted to a colony. 4. No one shall occupy of the public land more than five hundred jugera, nor pasture on the public commons more than a hundred head of large, nor more than five hundred head of small, stock. 5. Those who occupy the public land shall pay to the state the tithe of the produce of the field, the fifth of the produce of the fruit-tree and the vineyard, and for every head of large stock, and for every head of small stock yearly. 6. The public lands shall be farmed by the censors to those willing to take them on these terms. The funds hence arising are to be applied to pay the army.—The foregoing were the most important permanent provisions of the Licinian law, and, for its immediate effect, oil. that all the public land occupied by indiuals, over five hundred jugera, should be divided by lot in portions of seven jugera to the plebeians.— But we must not hastily infer, as some readers of Niebuhr's works have done, that these agrarian laws did not in any manner violate private rights. This would be quite as far from the truth as the prevailing opinion already mentioned, which is now exploded. Besides the argument we might derive from the very nature of the case, we have the direct testimony of ancient writers to the injustice of such laws, and their violation of private rights. It will suffice to refer to that of Cicero alone, who says in his De Officiis (2,21), “Those men who wish to make themselves popular, and who, for that purpose, either attempt agrarian laws, in order to drive people from their possessions, or who maintain that creditors ought to forgive debtors what they owe, undermine the foundations of the state; they destroy all concord, which cannot exist when money is taken from one man to be given to another; and they set aside justice, which is always violated when every man is not suffered to retain what is his own ;” which reflections would not have been called forth, unless the laws in question had directly and plainly violated private rights. (Encyclopodia Americana, vol. 1, p. 100, seqq.) AGRAttli A, a festival celebrated at Athens in honour of Agraulos, the daughter of Cecrops, and priest

it. vi

tribe dwelling in the vicinity of the river A

ess of Minerva. The Cyprians also honoured her with an annual festival, in the month Aphrodisius, at which they offered human victims. (Robinson's Antiquities of Greece, 2d ed., p. 276.) AGRAulos, I, the daughter of Actaeus, king of Attica, and the wife of Cecrops. She became by him the mother of Erysichthon, Agraulos, Herse, and Pandrosos. – II. A daughter of Cecrops and Agraulos, and mother of Alcippe by Mars. (Vid. Supplement.) Agresphon, a Greek grammarian mentioned by Suidas (s. v. 'Atroovtoc). He wrote a work, IIept 'Ouovtusov (concerning persons of the same name). He cannot have lived earlier than the reign of Hadrian, as in his work he spoke of an Apollonius who lived in the

time of that emperor.

Agreus, the hunter, an epithet of Pan. AGRIXNEs, I, a small river of Thrace, running into the Hebrus. It is now the Ergene.—II. A Thracian anes. (Herod., 5, 16.)—III. A people of Illyria, on the frontiers of lower Moesia. They were originally from Thrace, and very probably a branch of the Thracian Agrianes. AGRIAsp4, a nation of Asia, mentioned by Quintus Curtius (7, 3). Some difference of opinion, however, exists with regard to the true reading in this passage. Most editors prefer Arimaspar, while others, and evidently with more correctness, consider Ariaspa, the . proper lection. (Compare Schmieder, ad Quint. Curt., l, c., and vid. Ariaspa.) AgricóLA, Cneius Julius, an eminent Roman commander, born A.D. 40, in the reign of Caligula, by whom his father Julius Graecinus was put to death for nobly refusing to plead against Marcus Silanus. His mother, to whom he owed his excellent education, was Julia Procilla, unhappily murdered on her estate in Liguria by a descent of freebooters from the piratical fleet of Otho. The first military service of Agricola was under Suetonius Paulinus in Britain ; and, on his return to Rome, he married a lady of rank, and was made quaestor in Asia, where, in a rich province, peculiarly open to official exactions, he maintained the strictest integrity. He was chosen tribune of the people, and praetor, under Nero, and, unhappily, in the commotion which followed the accession of Galba, lost his mother as above mentioned. By Wespasian, whose cause he espoused, he was made a patrician, and governor of Aquitania, which post he held for three years. The dignity of consul followed, and in the same year he married his daughter to the historian Tacitus. He was soon afterward made governor of Britain, where he subjugated the Ordovices, in North Wales, and reduced the island of Mona, or Anglesea. He adopted the most wise and generous plans for civilizing the Britons, by inducing the nobles to assume the Roman habit, and have their children instructed in the Latin language. He also gradually adorned the country with magnificent temples, porticoes, baths, and public edifices, of a nature to excite the admiration and emulation of the rude people whom he governed. With these cares, however, he indulged the usual ambition of a Roman commander, to add to the limits of the Roman territory, by extending his arms northward; and in the succeeding three years he passed the river Tuesis, or Tweed, subdued the country as far as the Frith of Tay, and erected a chain of protective fortresses from the Clota, or Clyde, to the Boderia AEstuarium, or Frith of Forth. He also stationed troops on the coast of Scotland opposite to Ireland, on which island he entertained views of conquest: and, in an expedition to the eastern part of Scotland, beyond the Frith of Forth, was accompanied by his fleet, which explored the inlets and harbours, and hemmed in the natives on every side. His seventh summer was passed in the same parts of Scotland, and the Grampian Hills became the scene of a decisive en

« PoprzedniaDalej »