Page:Dickson-Husbandry-of-the-Ancients-Vol-I.pdf/36

2 of Hannibal. Agriculture, in the hands of uch perons, was certainly brought to great perfection, and all its operations performed with the greatet exactnes and oeconomy. This Pliny aerts, and aligns it as the reaon that, in ancient times, there was uch plenty of corn in Rome. ‘What,’ ays he, ‘was the caue of this fruitfulnes? Was it, becaue in thoe times the lands were cultivated by the hands even of generals, the earth, as it is natural to uppose, delighting to be ploughed with a hare adorned with laurels, and by a ploughman who had been honoured with a triumph? or, becaue thee men ploughed their fields with the ame diligence that they pitched their camps, and owed their corn with the ame care that they formed their armies for battle Quaenam ergo tantae ubertatis canfa erat? Ipforamtune manibus Imperatorum colebantur agri; (ut fas et credere) gaudente terra vomere laureato et triumphali aratire: ive illi eadem cura femina tractabant, qua bella; eademque diligentia arva diponebant, qua catra; Plin. Nat. Hit. lib. . cap. .

The knowledge of the Romans in agriculture is called in quetion by ome modern authors. The forets and lakes in Italy, and the tetimony of authors in the mot flourihing aera of the tate, and particularly of Cato the Cenor, are mentioned as evidence of this. The extent of the forets and lakes is no doubt an evidence that Italy, as a country, was not improved in uch a manner as might have been done; but it is no evidence that agriculture was not brought by the Romans to all the perfection of which it is capable. The draining of extenive lakes, and clearing of extenive forets, are works that cannot be executed without great labour and expence; and nothing will engage men to counter thee but a great demand for the produce of improved lands. In Italy there was no uch demand. The cultivated lands were o fruitful as to upply the whole inhabitants at a very cheap rate. The proportion between the expence of labour and the price of corn is perhaps the mot proper thing to determine, not only whether the lands of Italy were very fruitful, but alo whether there was any encouragement for expenive improvements. In the time of Cato, wheat was old at the rate of 3s 6d. per quarter; and, for more than 150 years after, did not exceed 10s. Was the proportion between thee at preent in Britain the ame, there would be no encouragement for expenive improvements, and indeed very little for the culture of corn.

It may likewie be oberved, that many of the forets of Italy were commonties belonging to villages, called communia or compacua. As it is expenive to improve these, o it is difficult to divide them: Neither is this ever attempted, except when men are encouraged by the high price given for the produce of improved lands.

If Cato the Cenor has indeed declared, that agriculture in Italy was in a low tate, the quetion is determined; for this art in his time was perhaps in as great perfection as at any period afterwards: But Cato has not aid o. What he aid implies not that agriculture in his time was not carried on with great ucces, but that grazing cattle was more profitable. The tory, as told by Columella, is as follows: Treating of paturage, he ays, ‘Et nunc apud notros quidem colonos, alia res uberior null et. Ut etiam M. Cato credidit, quid conulenti, quam partem rei ruticae exercendo celeriter locupletari poet? repondet, i bene pafeceret: ruruque interroganti, quid deinde faciendo fatis uberes fructus percepturus eet? Affirmavit, i mediocriter paceret. Caeterum de tam apiente viro piget dicere, quod eum quidam auctores memorant, eidem quaerenti, quodnam tertium in agricolatione quaetuoum eet? affervae, i quis vel male paceret: cum praeertim majus dipendium equatur inertem et incium patorem, quam prudentem diligentemque compendium;’ Col. lib. Praef. This cannot be uppoed to imply any thing more than that the profits of paturage were in his time much higher than the profits of tillage, occaioned not by any defect in the culture of the lands, but by the high price of labour and the low price of corn. Had it been Cato’s opinion that, in every cae, the profits of paturage exceed the profits of every kind of culture, he would have given meadows the firt place in his lit of fields ranked by him in order, according to their value to a purchaer; and yet, in this lit, he aigns them only the fifth place; a certain evidence that he conidered the other crops, when properly cultivated as more valuable. See chap. ?’ Exactness