subsequently they divided the soil of Lipari, where their chief town was; as for the other islands, they continued to becultivated in common. Finally, they divided all the islands among them, in the same way, for twenty years; at the end of thisterm they again divided them by lot." (10)Thus, at the time when Diodorus of Sicily wrote, that is to say, under the first Roman Emperor, private property in land wasnot yet completely established among the Greeks in the small Lipari islands: at the gates of Rome they practised the periodicpartitions noticed in Germany by Caesar and Tacitus. A curious point to notice is that the Suevi, according to Caesar, actedin the same way as the people of Lipari: "Those who remain at home cultivate the soil for themselves and their absentcountrymen; and themselves take arms in their turn the next year, while the others remain at home; for no one possesses landin separate ownership." M. Viollet thinks it beyond doubt that the system of collective property had left deep traces inSouthern Italy, even in historic times. He says:--"Might we not assert as much of some of the first settlers in Magna Graecia? It is a pure conjecture that we shall now offer,but conjectures should not always be neglected. Let us transport ourselves for a moment to Magna Graecia, and consult thebiographies of Pythagoras, handed down to us from antiquity. We know that Pythagoras gathered together a number ofdisciples, who practised the system of community of goods. It is not to these small assemblages of persons that we woulddirect attention, for surely we may accept the testimony of biographers on this point, who regard the institution as the workof the philosophers, and as in no way connected with the historic origin of Magna Graecia. But there is another factattributed to Pythagoras, which is more general, more important, and more difficult to understand. At the bidding of thiseloquent personage, says a writer, more than two thousand persons adopted the system of community and organized apolitical order in Magna Graecia. More than this; if we consider the expressions of the historian, we may conclude that he isspeaking of the actual origin of several cities of Magna Graecia. (11) Thus, according to the text, subsequently to thefoundation of Rome, one, or even several towns in the South of Italy, was founded and established on the system of jointundivided property. This is a social fact of great importance, attributed to a remote era which would have left but feebletraces in history. May we not, then, enquire whether an ancient tradition, concerning the origin of certain towns in MagnaGraecia, may not have taken form in the later, half-legendary accounts of the life of Pythagoras? Under the name andprotection of Pythagoras a very valuable historical tradition may thus have come down to us. A fact in confirmation of thisidea, is that the passage of Nicomachus, quoted by Porphyrus, stands quite alone in the biographies of Pythagoras;everywhere else the disciples merely of the philosopher are mentioned, that is to say, an inconsiderable body of men,amounting at most to some six hundred persons. In an entirely different source we find a point, which is probably connectedwith what we are speaking of. It is with regard to the inhabitants of Tarentum, where the citizens seem to have retainedsomething of the ancient community of the soil until the time of Aristotle. `At Tarentum the common use of the soil isallowed to the poor; and by this means the allegiance of the mob is secured,' we read in the Politics . (12) Thus the town ofTarentum practised, for the benefit of the poor, a custom which recalls the periodic partition of land in the Lipari Isles. Thecustom is much better explained by history than by philanthropy; and we probably see in it a relic of remote antiquity."Aristotle seems to have been acquainted with the two primitive forms of community; that where the produce is gathered incommon, and that in which the land is divided among the members. Thus, he says, "the fields would be separate property,while the harvest would be the common property of all. This custom is in force among some nations. Or else the soil mightbe common property, while the harvests were divided among all in several ownership. This kind of community is foundamong several barbarian nations." (13) Aristotle does not indicate very clearly the characteristics of the two systems which heis describing: but the first seems to belong to certain Greek cities, where the produce of individual lands was consumed incommon at public repasts, while the second would be that of periodic partition of the common soil, such as we find itdescnbed in several ancient writers.
Diodorus of Sicily says that the Vacaeans, a Celt-Iberian tribe, "annually divide the land among them for cultivation, andthen, bringing the produce together, give every one his share. The penalty of death is established against any cultivatorinfringing these dispositions." (14)
