190 Southern Italy [pro Tullio] 



armed bands, a danger to individuals and even to the state, that had 

 led to the creation of the new form of action at law. In stating the 

 facts of the case, of course from his client's point of view, he gives us 

 details 1 which, true or not, were at least such as would not seem in- 

 credible to a Roman court. Tullius owned an estate in southern Italy. 

 That his title to it was good is taken for granted. But in it was reckoned 

 a certain parcel of land which had been in undisputed possession of 

 his father. This strip, which was so situated as to form a convenient 

 adjunct to a neighbouring estate, was the cause of trouble. The neigh- 

 bouring estate had been bought by two partners, who had paid a fancy 

 price for it. The bargain was a bad one, for the land proved to be 

 derelict and the farmsteads all burnt down. One of the partners induced 

 the other to buy him out. In stating the area of the property he included 

 the border strip of land claimed by Tullius as his own. In the process of 

 settlement of boundaries for the transfer to the new sole owner he would 

 have included the disputed ground, but Tullius instructed 2 his attorney 

 and his steward to prevent this: they evidently did so, and thus the owner- 

 ship of the border strip was left to be determined by process of law. 

 The sequel was characteristic of the times. The thwarted claimant 

 armed a band of slaves and took possession 3 of the land by force, killing 

 the slaves who were in occupation on behalf of Tullius, and committing 

 other murders and acts of brigandage by the way. We need not follow 

 the case into the law-court. What concerns us is the evidence of un- 

 fortunate land speculation, of land-grabbing, of boundary-disputes, and 

 of the prompt use of violence to supersede or hamper the legal deter- 

 mination of rights. The colouring and exaggeration of counsel is to be 

 allowed for; but we can hardly reject the main outlines of the picture 

 of armed slave-bands and bloodshed as a rural phenomenon of the 

 sorely tried South of Italy. 



The speech pro Caecina shews us the same state of things existing 

 in Etruria. The armed violence alleged in this case is milder in form : 

 at least the one party fled, and nobody was killed. Proceedings were 

 taken under a possessory interdict issued by a praetor, and Cicero's 

 artful pleading is largely occupied with discussion of the bearing and 

 effect of the particular formula employed. Several interesting transac- 

 tions 4 are referred to. A man invests his wife's dowry in a farm, land 

 being cheap, owing to bad times, probably the result of the Sullan civil 

 war. Some time after, he bought some adjoining land for himself. 

 After his death and that of his direct heir, the estate had to be liquidated 



1 pro Tullio 14-22. 



2 17 mittit ad procuratorem litter as et advilicum, 



3 To conduct of this kind Cicero makes a general reference in Paradoxa vi 46 expul- 

 siones vitinorum...latrocinia in agris. 



4 pro Caecina 10-19. 



