The Development of Agriculture in the ‘Ager Cosanus’ during the Roman Republic: Problems of Evidence and Interpretation
It is a well-established view that in the century following the Hannibalic War the Italian countryside saw the expropriation of its free peasantry and the introduction of slave-staffed villas. This assumption of fact underlies much modern historical research. As one recent study put it: ‘When we compare Roman with American slavery, the growth of slavery in Roman Italy seems surprising. In the eighteenth century, slavery was used as a means of recruiting labour to cultivate newly discovered lands for which there was no adequate local labour force…. In Roman Italy…slaves were recruited to cultivate land which was already being cultivated by citizen peasants. We have to explain not only the import of slaves but the extrusion of citizens'. The usual answer has been that land was the largest single available investment for the wealth which the upper classes had derived from imperialism and was also the most socially acceptable investment. But despite postulation of a largely economic motive, the approach taken by historians has been mainly social and political. The explanation, however, and the type of approach involved owe much of their plausibility and hence popularity to what is also their greatest weakness, namely somewhat circular argumentation. The evidence on which the phenomenon and its explanation have been constructed is above all that of the literary sources, and the context in which this information is given is almost invariably political—the obvious and major instance is the Gracchan reforms. It should hardly surprise us, then, that this view of Republican agrarian history provides a neat socio-economic explanation for the political upheavals of the later Republic for which we again take our main evidence from the very same sources. Such validation is only apparent. Perhaps it speaks for the internal consistency of these literary sources; certainly it illustrates our pathetic imprisonment within the ‘facts’ and ‘interpretations’—one could say tout court the bias—of these sources. There is little to be gained from further introspective critique of this type of evidence.