'Back to the land' an attempt 141 



earning work of landless men, such as appears in the earlier traditions, 

 still went on. It was not yet overlaid by the plantation-system, and 

 degraded by the associations of the slave-gang and the ergastulum. 



When we pass on to the second Punic war, of which we have a 



fuller and less legendary record, we find the circumstances somewhat 



changed, but the importance of the Roman farmer's grip of the land is 



recognized as clearly as before. It is not unlikely that since the time 



of the Pyrrhic war the practise of large-scale farming with slave-labour 



had begun to appear 1 in Italy, but it can hardly as yet have been 



widespread. Large or small, the farms' in a large part of the country 



had suffered from the ravages of Hannibal, and it would be the land 



of Romans and their faithful allies that suffered most. Many rustics 



had to seek shelter in walled towns, above all in Rome, and their' 



presence was no doubt in many ways embarrassing. Naturally, as the 



failure of Hannibal became manifest, the Roman Senate was desirous 



of restoring these refugees to the land and relieving the pressure on 



the city. Livy, drawing no doubt from an earlier annalist, tells us 2 that 



in 206 BC the Senate instructed the consuls, before they left for the seat 



of war, to undertake the bringing back of the common folk (plebis) on 



to the land. They pointed out that this was desirable, and possible 



under the better conditions now prevailing. 'But it was for the people 



(populo) not at all an easy matter; for the free farmers (cultoribus) had 



perished in the war, there was a shortage of slaves (inopia servitioruni), 



the live stock had been carried off, and the farmsteads (viltis) wrecked 



or burnt. Yet under pressure from the consuls a good many did go 



back to the land.' He adds that what had raised the question at this 



particular juncture was the appeal of a deputation from Placentia and 



Cremona. These two Latin colonies, founded twelve years before as 



fortresses to hold the region of the Po, had suffered from Gaulish raids 



and had no longer a sufficient population, many settlers having gone 



off elsewhere. The Roman commander in the district was charged to 



provide for their protection, and the truant colonists ordered to return 



to their posts. It was evidently thought that with full numbers and 



military support there would be an end to the derelict condition of 



their territories, and that the two colonies would soon revive. 



This attempt to reestablish the rustic population lays stress upon 

 the general identity of farmer and soldier and the disturbance of 

 agriculture by the ravages of war. But most notable is the mention 

 of the shortage of slave-labour as a hindrance to resumption of work 



1 How far we can infer this from references to slaves such as Livy xxm 32 15 (215 BC), 

 xxv i 4 (213 BC), xxvi 35 5 (210 BC), is not quite certain. The Licinian law to check 

 the grabbing of state domain land certainly does not prove it, for that land was probably lor 

 the most part pasture. 



2 Liv xxvin ii 9. 



