De Lege Agraria

Of all laws I think that one is the most unjust and the most unlike a law, which Lucius Flaccus, the interrex, passed respecting Sulla—“That everything which he has done should be ratified.” For, as in other states, when tyrants are established, all laws are extinguished and destroyed this man established a tyrant of the republic by law. It is an invidious law, as I said before; but still it has some excuse. For it appears to be a law not urged by the man but by the time. What shall we say if this law is a far more impudent one?

For by the Valerian and Cornelian law this power is taken away at the same time that it is given. [*](There is probably some corruption in the text here and in the next few sentences; Orellius marks them with a dagger.) An impudent courting of the people is joined with a bitter injury done to them. But still a man from whom any property is taken always has some hope arising from those laws; and he, to whom any is given, has some scruples. The provision in Rullus's law is, “Whatever has been done since the consulship of Caius Marius and Cnaeus Papirius.” How carefully does he avoid suspicion, when he names those consuls most especially who were the greatest adversaries of Sulla. For, if he had named Sulla, he thought that that would have been a palpable and also an invidious measure. And yet, which of you did he expect to be so stupid, as not to be able to recollect that immediately after the consulship of those men Sulla became dictator?

What then does this Marian tribune of the people say, when he is trying to make us, who are Sulla's friends, unpopular? “Whatever has been given, or assigned, or sold, or granted by public authority, whether lands, or houses, or lakes, or marshes, or sites, or properties,” (he has omitted to mention the sky and sea, but he has omitted nothing else,) “since the consulship of Marius and Carbo.” By whom, O Rullus? Who has allotted anything whatever since the Consulship of Marius and Carbo? Who has given anything, who has granted anything, except Sulla? “Let all those things remain in the same condition.” In what condition? He is undermining something or other. This over active and too energetic tribune of the people is rescinding the acts of Sulla. “As those things which have become private property according to the most regular possible course of law.” Are they then to be held on a surer tenure than a man's paternal and hereditary property?

Just so. But the Valerian law does not say this; the Cornelian laws do not sanction this; Sulla himself does not demand this. If those lands have any connection with legal right, if they have any resemblance to private property, if they have the least hope of becoming permanent property, then there is not one of those men so impudent as not to think that he is excellently well treated. But you, O Rullus, what is your object? That they may retain what they have got? Who hinders them? That they may retain it as private property? But the law is framed in such a way that the farm of your father-in-law in the Hirpine district, or the whole Hirpine district, for he is in possession of all of it, is held by him on a surer tenure than my paternal hereditary estate at Arpinum. For that is the effect of the provision of your law.

For those farms in truth are held by the best right, which are held on the best conditions. Free tenures are held by a better tenure than servile ones. By this clause all tenures which have hitherto been servile [*](Serva praedia mean such estates as were liable to certain burdens or duties; held by the performance of certain services.) tenures will be so no longer. Enfranchised estates are in a better condition than those which are liable to no obligations; by the same clause all lands subject to the payment of any fine, if only they were assigned by Sulla, are released from such payments. Lands which are exempt from payment are in a better condition than those which pay a fine. I, in my Tusculan villa, must pay a tax for the Crabran [*]( The Crabra aqua is several times mentioned by Cicero in his letters as a small artificial stream running through his Tusculan property. He even had a law-suit respecting it, as appears from one of his letters. ) water, because I received my estate subject to this liability; but, if I had only had the land given me by Sulla, I should not pay it, according to the law of Rullus.

I see you, O Romans, moved either by the impudence of the law or of the speech, as indeed you must be from the nature of the case; by the impudence of the law, which gives a better title to estates possessed by virtue of Sulla's donation than to hereditary property; by the impudence of the speech which, in such a cause is that, dares to accuse any one, and yet vehemently, too vehemently, to defend the principles of Sulla. But if the law only ratified all the allotments which had been given by Sulla, I should not say a word, provided he would confess himself to be a partisan of Sulla's. But he does not only protect their existing interests, but he even adds to their present possessions some sort of gift. And he, who accuses me, saying that the possessions resting on Sulla's title are defended by me, not only con firms them him sell, but even institutes fresh allotments, and rises up among us a new Sulla.