SECT. I.
On the Rise and Progress of Agriculture.
The origin of this art is lost among the fables of antiquity, and we have to regret, that in the present state of knowledge, we are even ignorant of the time, when the plough was invented, and of the name and condition of the inventor. When therefore we speak of the beginning of the art, we but allude to certain appearances which indicate its existence, and the employment given by it to the minds, as well as to the hands, of mankind. Such were the artificial canals and lakes of Egypt. Menaced at one time by a redundancy of water, and at another by its scarcity or want, the genius of that extraordinary people could not but employ itself, promptly and strenuously, in remedying these evils, and eventually, in converting them into benefits; and hence it was, that when other parts of the world exhibited little more of agricultural knowledge than appertains to the state of nature, imagined by philosophers, the Egyptians thoroughly understood and skilfully practised irrigation, that most scientific and profitable branch of the art.[1] Like their own Nile, their population had its overflow, which colonized Carthage and Greece, and carried with it the talent and intelligence of the mother country. The former of these states, though essentially commercial, had its plantations, and so highly prized were the agricultural works of Mago, that when Carthage was captured, they alone, of the many books found in it, were retained and translated by the Romans. A similar inference may be drawn from the history of Greece; for assuredly that art could not have been either unknown or neglected, which so long employed the pen and the tongue of the great Xenophon.[2] It must however be admitted, that of the ancient nations, it is only among the Romans, that we find real and multiplied evidences of the progress of the art; facts, substituted for conjectures and inferences. Cato, Varro, Columella, Virgil and Pliny, wrote on the subject, and it is from their works we derive the following brief exposition of Roman husbandry.
The plough, the great instrument of agricultural labour, was well known and generally used among them; it was drawn exclusively by horned cattle. Of fossile manures, we know that they used lime, and probably marle,[3] and that those of animal and vegetable basis, were carefully collected. Attention to this subject, even made part of the national religion; the dunghill had its god, and Stercutus, his temple and worshippers. Their corn crops were abundant; besides barley and far,[4] they had three species of wheat; the robus or red—the siligo or white—and the triticum trimestre, or summer wheat; they had besides millet, panis, zea (Indian corn) and rye, all of which producing a flour convertible into bread, were known by the common name of frumentum. Leguminous crops were frequent; the lupin in particular was raised in abundance, and besides being employed as a manure,[5] entered extensively into the subsistence of men, cattle and poultry. The cultivation of garden vegetables was well understood and employed many hands; and meadows, natural and artificial, were brought to great perfection. Lucern and fenugrec were the basis of the latter, and peas, rye and a mixture of barley, beans and peas, called farrago, were occasionally used in the stables as green food. Their flocks were abundant, and formed their first representatives of wealth, as is sufficiently indicated by their word pecunia. Vines and olives, and their products (wine and oil) had a full share of attention and use. The rearing of poultry made an important part of domestic economy, nor were apiaries and fish ponds forgotten or neglected.
If we pause for a moment, to glance at the civil institutions of this wonderful people, we discover how soon and how deeply it entered into their policy, not merely to promote, but to dignify agriculture and its professors.[6] When Cicero said, that "nothing in this world was better, more useful, more agreeable, more worthy of a free man, than agriculture;"[7] he pronounced, not merely his own opinion, but the public judgment of his age and nation. Were troops to be raised for the defence of the republic? The tribus rusticus was the privileged nursery of the legions![8] Did exigencies of state require a general or dictator? he was taken from the plough! Were his services rewarded? this was done not with ribbands or gold, but by a donation of land.[9]
With such support from public opinion, it was not to be supposed that the laws would be either adverse or indifferent to this branch of industry. We accordingly find the utmost security given to the labours of the husbandman;[10] no legislative interposition between the seller and buyer, neither forced sales—nor limitation of prices—and a sacredness of boundaries never disturbed;[11] fairs and markets multiplied and protected against invasion or interruption,[12] and highways leading to these every where established, and of a character to call forth benedictions and admiration.[13]
Nor were these regulations confined to the proper territory of Rome. What of her own policy was good, she communicated to her neighbours; what of theirs was better, she adopted and practised herself. Her arts and arms were therefore constant companions. Wherever her legions marched, her knowledge, practices, and implements followed; and it is to these we are to look for the foundation of modern agriculture in Italy, France, Spain, &c.
[Albany Argus.
(To be continued.)