[Footnote 22: Long, I, 355; Wordsworth, 440; See Rudorff, Ack. des Sp. Thor.] [Footnote 23: Zeitschrift für geschichtliche Rechtswissenschaft, Band X, s. 1-194.] [Footnote 24: C.I.L., I, pp. 75-86.] [Footnote 25: Long, I, 356.] [Footnote 26: Wordsworth, 447. See the text of this law in C.I.L., vol. I, pp. 79-80.] [Footnote 27: Long, I, 359.] [Footnote 28: "Quom quis ceivis Romanus agri colendi causa in eum agrum agri jugera non amplius xxx possidebit habebitue, is ager privatus esto."] [Footnote 29: Long, _loc. cit._; Wordsworth, 446.] [Footnote 30: Digby, _History of the Law of Real Property in England_, p. 157.] [Footnote 31: Long, I, 357.] [Footnote 32: Appian, I, c. 27.] [Footnote 33: Long, _loc. cit._; Ihne, _loc. cit._] [Footnote 34: Ihne, _loc. cit._; Long, _loc. cit._] [Footnote 35: Momm., _loc. cit._] SEC. 14.--AGRARIAN MOVEMENTS BETWEEN 111 AND 86. In the year following the enactment of the _lex Thoria_, or, by some other authorities, in 105, an agrarian law was proposed by a tribune named Marcus Philippus. Cicero is the only writer who mentions it, and he has given us no information concerning its tendency and dispositions. We only know from him that it was rejected.[1] Probably the whole thing was merely a political ruse in order to gain an election or to be handsomely bought off by the nobility. It, however, presents one point of interest to us. The introduction of the bill was preceded by a speech, in which the tribune, in justifying his undertaking, affirmed that there were not two thousand citizens who had wealth. Cicero has made no attempt to refute this, and must, therefore, have judged it true. It reveals the fact that Rome was in a deplorable condition.