From: L
Subject: 1st Welfare??
On pages 102-103 of the text, I found what sounds to me to be *perhaps* the first welfare system....the distribution of land thru Tiberius. He passed a bill allowing the state to "assign parcels of land, reclaimed from the wealthy, to dispossessed farmers. . ." I understand that his aim wasn't totally selfless in that he wanted to ensure that people would keep multiplying and soldiers would be raised there, but I still think that this system was a big step in the beginnings of welfare......any thoughts???
*L*
From: C
Subject: First Welfare
To: Multiple recipients of list HY101 <HY101@idbsu.idbsu.edu>
I agree with L's comment that this does look like welfare. Earlier in the text (on page 95) it does make a comment that would make lean toward L's latter explanation of the redistribution of land thru Tiberius as ensuring that people would keep multiplying and soldiers would be raised. The particular comment I am referring to states: "The state also restricted in 367 BCE, the amount of public land that any citizen could occupy. This measure prevented the upper classes from acquiring an overwhelming share of farming land and made possible a dramatic growth of manpower among farmers who could, when necessary, serve in the army. It was, in fact, the huge reserve of fighting men that guaranteed Rome's expansion within Italy and its victories in the long Punic Wars." So it would seem that the concern for "reserves" was a concern for Rome from early on.
I am interested in WHY the parcels of public land were reclaimed from the wealthy to begin with. If it were strictly for the redistribution to dispossessed farmers, I would say that this is strong evidence for the "first welfare."
C
From: "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" <skip@MICRON.NET>
Subject: Re: First Welfare
I have to take issue with characterizing Tiberius Gracchus' Land Act as welfare. Here is another example of using a modern word, one that is highly charged and has a distinct connotation, and applying it to the past.
If redistributing land constitutes welfare, then the Romans certainly weren't the first. Does anyone remember an example from Athens?
There *is* an example from the Republic that is much closer to our notion of welfare, and it too comes from the late Republic. Anyone care to argue a case? It's a common phrase, commonly associated with Rome.
From: "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" <skip@MICRON.NET>
Subject: Re: First Welfare
>I am interested in WHY the parcels of public land were reclaimed from the
>wealthy to begin with. If it were strictly for the redistribution to
>dispossessed farmers, I would say that this is strong evidence for the
>"first welfare."
This requires knowing rather more about Rome than a survey text covers. Here's a quick answer. "Public land" had a specific legal meaning in Rome; namely, these were territories that had been conquered by Roman armies and that technically belonged to the State. Over the years, some of these lands fell into private hands legally, some were "administered" by certain families for so long that they had become nearly private, and some had been outright embezzled. Tiberius Gracchus could argue that he was merely taking back what was Rome's in the first place, but that still did not placate the many landlords who would claim the land was theirs, and who would hire lawyers to prove it. The more direct route was to pass a new law.
From: B
Subject: Re: First Welfare
>There *is* an example from the Republic that is much closer to our notion of
>welfare, and it too comes from the late Republic. Anyone care to argue a
>case? It's a common phrase, commonly associated with Rome.
>
>What seems to me to be a truly *welfare* act implemented is when Gaius
>Gracchus "instituted a bread rations program for the Roman poor" (Web
>lecture, The End of the Republican Rome, page 8). Being a complete newcomer
>to the WWW, I can't even find a mention of Gaius Gracchus, but if someone
>gets more details please post...
>...H
I found a translated text (once again written by Plutarch) about the man Gaius Gracchus. It gives a fair outline of what he did for the people. It also gives sort of an idea of why he did these things.
"Of the laws which he now proposed, with the object of gratifying the people and abridging the power of the senate, the first was concerning the public lands, which were to be divided amongst the poor citizens; another was concerning the common soldiers, that they should be clothed at the public charge, without any diminution of their pay, and that none should be obliged to serve in the army who was not full seventeen years old; another gave the same right to all the Italians in general, of voting at elections, as was enjoyed by the citizens of Rome; a fourth related to the price of corn, which was to be sold at a lower rate than formerly to the poor; and a fifth regulated the courts of justice, greatly reducing the power of the senators."
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
It also adds a little light to the equestrian/senator question someone was mentioning:
"For hitherto, in all causes, senators only sat as judges, and were therefore much dreaded by the Roman knights and the people. But Caius joined three hundred ordinary citizens of equestrian rank with the senators, who were three hundred likewise in number, and ordained that the judicial authority should be equally invested in the six hundred. While he was arguing for the ratification of this law, his behaviour was observed to show in many respects unusual earnestness, and whereas other popular leaders had always hitherto, when speaking, turned their faces towards the senate-house, and the place called the comitium, he, on the contrary, was the first man that in his harangue to the people turned himself the other way, towards them, and continued after that time to do so. An insignificant movement and change of posture, yet it marked no small revolution in state affairs, the conversion, in a manner, of the whole government from an aristocracy to a democracy, his action intimating that public speakers should address themselves to the people, not the senate."
Anyway, it goes on and is pretty cool - but if you want to read it you can find it at:
http://the-tech.mit.edu/Classics/Plutarch/gracchus.html
B
From: "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" <sknox@VARNEY.IDBSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: First Welfare
>>What seems to me to be a truly *welfare* act implemented is when Gaius
>Gracchus "instituted a bread rations program for the Roman poor" (Web
>lecture, The End of the Republican Rome, page 8).
Yes, H, that's exactly what I had in mind. And the phrase that I had in mind was "bread and circuses", which latter refers to the games and entertainments that were held for the citizens of Rome at public expense. Both practices arose in the later years of the Republic and continued long into the Empire.