This chapter analyses the development of Roman legal colonial discourse in the eighteenth and early nineteenth century, focusing on the studies of Louis de Beaufort and Barthold Georg Niebuhr, who are generally considered to have revolutionized Roman studies by their critical approach to the literary sources. Beaufort’s attempt to disconnect Roman land-distribution programmes from colonization schemes was part of a wider anti-feudal political agenda, advocating the redistribution of land to diminish aristocratic power and improve the living conditions of lower classes. Niebuhr continued this interest in Roman land division policies, focusing especially on the legal definition of different types of landholding and of the personal status of the farmers. His detailed studies convincingly showed the legal differences between colonial programmes and viritane land division schemes. Moreover, he argued that this last practice was restricted only to public lands, and was not used to redistribute private properties of aristocratic landowners.
Roman Colonization and Land Division between Enlightenment and Romanticism: Beaufort and Niebuhr
Mattia Balbo
2020-01-01
Abstract
This chapter analyses the development of Roman legal colonial discourse in the eighteenth and early nineteenth century, focusing on the studies of Louis de Beaufort and Barthold Georg Niebuhr, who are generally considered to have revolutionized Roman studies by their critical approach to the literary sources. Beaufort’s attempt to disconnect Roman land-distribution programmes from colonization schemes was part of a wider anti-feudal political agenda, advocating the redistribution of land to diminish aristocratic power and improve the living conditions of lower classes. Niebuhr continued this interest in Roman land division policies, focusing especially on the legal definition of different types of landholding and of the personal status of the farmers. His detailed studies convincingly showed the legal differences between colonial programmes and viritane land division schemes. Moreover, he argued that this last practice was restricted only to public lands, and was not used to redistribute private properties of aristocratic landowners.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.